Peruvian Archaeology - A Critical History - Henry Tantalean

chapter title
Peruvian Archaeology

A Critical History
Henry Tantalen
Translated by Charles Stanish
Walnut Creek, California
Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History
Left Coast Press, Inc.

1630 North Main Street, #400
Walnut Creek, ca 94596
www.LCoastPress.com
Copyright 2014 by Left Coast Press, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
isbn 978-1-61132-991-9 hardback

isbn 978-1-61132-993-3 institutional eBook
isbn 978-1-61132-747-2 consumer eBook
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Tantalen, Henry, 1974Peruvian archaeology / Henry Tantalen; translated by Charles Stanish.
pages cm
isbn 978-1-61132-991-9 (hardback)
isbn 978-1-61132-747-2 (consumer eBook)
isbn 978-1-61132-993-3 (institutional eBook)
1. ArchaeologyPeruHistory. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)PeruHistory.
3. Archaeological expeditionsPeruHistory. I. Title.
f 3429.t 2168 2014
985 .01dc23
2013049787
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ansi/niso z39.481992.
Cover design by Jane Burton
Title page image: Figurine bottle of drummer. Moche culture, Vicus, Per, 2nd5th century.
Photo by Raccolte Extraeuropee del Castallo Sforzesco, licensed under Creative Commons.
chapter title
Contents
List of Illustrations 7
Acknowledgements11
Foreword15
Introduction: The Crisscrossed Past 17
Chapter 1. The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru 20
Chapter 2. The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology:

Max Uhle and Cultural Evolutionism 29
Chapter 3. Archaeology and Nationalism in the 1920s:

Julio C. Tello and Peruvian Culture 44
Chapter 4. Indigenismo in the Ancient Capital of the Incas:

The Cusqueo Period of Luis Valcrcel 56
Chapter 5. North American Influence in the 1940s:

Rafael Larco Hoyle and the Vir Project 70
Chapter 6. New Horizons in Peruvian Archaeology:

John H. Rowe and the Berkeley School 83
Chapter 7. Ethnohistory and Archaeology in the 1960s:

John Murras Influence in Peru 91
Chapter 8. Archaeology as Social Science:

From Gordon Childe to Luis Lumbreras 103
Chapter 9. Processualist Archaeology in Peru:

Emergence and Development 116
Chapter 10. Archaeology in 1990s Peru:

A View from Lima 126
Chapter 11. Peruvian Archaeology at the Beginning of

the Twenty-First Century: Boom and Bust 136
Conclusion: New Horizons for Peruvian Archaeology

in a Globalized World 149
Notes157
References171
Index197
About the Author 215
chapter title
Illustrations
Figure 1. Volume ii of Antigedades Peruanas (1851). 25
Figure 2. Illustration of Inca ruins from Antigedades Peruanas (1851). 26
Figure 3. Alphons Stbel, 1871. 27
Figure 4. Wilhelm Reiss. 27
Figure 5. Max Uhle. 30
Figure 6. Museum fr Vlkerkunde, Berlin. 32
Figure 7. Adolph Bastian. 33
Figure 8. Phoebe Hearst, circa 1890. 35
Figure 9. Museum of National History, Lima, 1906. 39
Figure 10. Julio C. Tello. 45
Figure 11. Museum of Archaeology, Lima, 1920s. 48
Figure 12. National Museum of Archaeology, 2013. 49
Figure 13. Julio C. Tello and Alfred Kroeber, November 1, 1926. 53
Figure 14. Tellos bronze sculpture with the Acllawasi (Inca building) in the
background, Pachacamac, Lima. 54
Figure 15. Luis E. Valcrcel at Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1923. 59

Figure 16. Performance of Misin de Arte Incaico en el Extranjero
in 1923. 60
Figure 17. Luis. E. Valcrcel and Julio C. Tello at Machu Picchu, Cusco, 1935. 67
Figure 18. Jorge C. Muelle. 68
Figure 19. Wendell C. Bennett. 73
Figure 20. Gordon Willey. 76
Figure 21. Rafael Larco Hoyle. 78
Figure 22. Chicln Museum, Chicama Valley, La Libertad, 2009. 79
Figure 23. North American Chicln Roundtable attendants. 80
Figure 24. Luis G. Lumbreras, Elas Mujica, and John Murra at the Iskanwaya
site in Bolivia, 1973. 95
Figure 25. Peruvian scholars at the Art Museum of Lima, 1997. 96

Figure 26. Emilio Choy. 104
Figure 27. Archaeology graduation ceremony, San Marcos University, 1974. 105
Figure 28. International Congress of Americanist at Lima, 1970. 108
Figure 29. San Marcos Universitys Museum of Archaeology
inauguration, 1969. 112
Figure 30. Michael Moseley at the El Paraiso site, Lima, 1967. 120
Figure 31. Ondores, House of the Agrarian Reform, 1973. 122
Figure 32. Aerial photo of Huaca San Marcos, Lima, 1944. 131
Figure 33. Ruth Shady and Joaqun Narvaez at Huaca San Marcos,
Lima, 2000. 133
Figure 34. Mariana Mould de Peases book presentation, Lima, 1997. 144
Figure 35. Dama de Cao performance, April 2009. 151
chapter title
Dedicated to Kelita,

because her smile illuminates my world
10
Acknowledgments
his book is a synthesis of the work I have done throughout my life,

work I have had the honor to share with many people. It is impossible
to remember each and every person that has helped me over the years.
Nevertheless, I want to thank a few people who were critical to this project
that took shape since my PhD studies at the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain. First, I want to thank my professors at Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos in Lima who helped me to become an archaeologist.
I particularly want to thank Jorge Silva, the man who introduced me to the
world of theoretical archaeology. I also want to recognize Bernardino Ojeda,
who welcomed me into his lab at the Centro de Investigaciones de Zonas
ridas (ciza) at the Universidad Agraria de La Molina and intrigued me
with his stories about his research with Frdric Engel.
In the last few years at San Marcos, I met many people who helped me
with my preprofessional practicums and introduced me to the world of
Andean archaeology. Among them are Vctor Ponte, who let me work in Hunucopampa; and Bertha Vargas, who invited me to work in the Programa
Contisuyu on the excavations that she and Bruce Owen were conducting at
the Chen Chen site. Here I met wonderful colleagues. I thank my dear friend
Marillyn Holmes, who has helped me over the last 18 years in so many ways. I
also thank the Proyecto de Investigaciones Arqueologicas Chincha (piach),
where I learned so many techniques of field archaelogy, and especially Carlos
del guila and Fernando Fujita, who included me in their work. I also have to
express my gratitude to Benjamn Guerrero of the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa, Antropologa e Historia, who provided me with a large bibliography,
much of which is included in this book.
After I graduated from the University, I spent a marvelous period in my life
working in Puno with Rolando Gato Paredes. His anecdotes about Peruvian
11
12
Acknowledgments
archaeology could fill a book of its own. Also in Puno, I got to know a number
of archaeologists who accompanied me in my research. I particularly remember Eduardo Arizaca.
I also thank a number of people that I met in Spain during my time there.
I thank Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, who taught the history of archaeology at the
Universidad Complutense de Madrid. I never tire of thanking Vicente Lull,
who welcomed me into the Department of Prehistory at the Universidad
Autnoma de Barcelona (uab), where I did my doctoral studies. It was
here in Barcelona that I learned about European archaeology. I was able to
visit many important cities such as Athens, Paris, Rome, London, Berlin,
Amsterdam, and many others. In each of these places I met colleagues who
influenced me in my theoretical and historical understanding of archaeology. I want to especially thank Manuela Fischer, who welcomed me into the
Ethnographic Museum of Berlin and allowed me to examine its collections.
In England, I met Bill Sillar, who helped me during my visits to University
College London (ucl). I also met a number of wonderful people, including
Helga Grstch, Paul Olrtegui, Cristina Aixal, Manuel Aguirre, and Juan
Carlos de la Torre. Im especially grateful to Nicols Robles for allowing me
to stay at his house at Cerdanyola del Valls to finish my dissertation and
for being a great friend at that critical time. I also thank some outstanding
professors, including Rafael Mic and Mara Saa of the uab for their inspiration and generosity.
In South America I want to especially thank Gustavo Politis, who offered
me his academic assistance and moreover became a very close friend. In Ecuador, Stefan Bohrquez introduced me to the archaeology of his beautiful
country. Thanks to Stefan, I know Jorge Marcos, who has become a teacher to
me. I also want to thank Eduardo Gos Neves, who invited me to the Museo
de Arqueologa y Etnologa de la Universidad de So Paulo in Brazil.
I met Charles Chip Stanish in 1997 in Puno, and I thank him for the opportunity to work more in this area for my doctoral thesis and for his help in
publishing this book. For the past three years, we have codirected the Programa Arqueolgico Chincha, a fabulous research experience that we have
just begun. Also, thanks to Chip, I have also become acquainted with North
America, particularly California, where I visited Thomas Patterson and other
colleagues who are part of Peruvian archaeology. I also thank him and Elena
Allen for translating the final chapter of this book from the original Spanish.
I also want to acknowledge Mitch Allen, who met me in Hawaii during
the saa meeting and agreed to publish this book.
Luis Guillermo Lumbreras has become an exceptional teacher for me in
the last few years, and I am fortunate to have long conversations about Peru-
Acknowledgments
13
vian and world archaeology. I also thank Juan Jos Rodrguez, who loaned me
one of the first archaeology books that I read in my life. I also acknowledge
Csar Astuhuamn, whose study of Tellos life inspired me to study the history of other Peruvian archaeologists. In Trujillo I thank Segundo Vsquez,
who has become a great friend of mine, passing unforgettable afternoons in
Cochayas house.
I also wish to acknowledge Fernando Brugu Valcrcel, Luis Lumbreras,
Mariana Mould de Pease, Manuela Fischer, Joaqun Narvez, John Rick,
Michael Moseley, Joanne Pillsbury, and Antonio Coello for some of the photographs that are used in this book. Richard Burger helped obtain the photograph of W. Bennett that appears in this book. I likewise thank Ulla Holmquist also providing photographs from the Larco Museum archive.
I take this opportunity to thank my friends from my days at the University San Marcos, especially Santiago Morales Erroch and Julissa Ugarte. Also,
new people have come into my life in recent years, and I wish to express my
thanks for their patience and generosity: Michiel Zegarra, Alex Gonzles
Panta, Alexis Rodrguez Yabar, Paolo Zorogasta, and Abel Fernndez. One of
my great friends, Miguel Aguilar Daz, cannot be forgotten in these acknowledgments.
I wish to thank my mother, Mnica, for her support and for the freedom
to be myself. Finally, I thank Kelita Prez Cubas, who fills my life with laughter and beautiful moments.
14
Foreword
had the pleasure of doing the initial translation of this book for my
colleague and friend Henry Tantalen. As I went through the chapters I
found myself fascinated by the insights that Henry brings to bear on the
history of Peruvian archaeology. There is a wealth of information about the
field in this book that contextualizes the growth and development of Peruvian archaeology for both the interested nonarchaeologist as well as the
professional. As a straightforward compilation of the key historical figures
and events in Peruvian archaeology, this book is well worth the read.
But there is much more. Henry brings to bear a critical historical approach to understanding these personages and events. This book focuses
on the political and social context of the production of knowledge about the
past in Peru. We see, from the perspective of a young Peruvian intellectual,
the influence of foreigners such as Ephraim Squier, Max Uhle, and John Rowe
on the course of archaeology in the country. We learn the details of how
nationalism and national identity drives much of the research. We see how
international events, such as the War of the Pacific, World Wars I and II, and
the Cold War profoundly affected the nature of Peruvian archaeology. He
deftly details the political struggles between some of the luminaries of Peruvian archaeology such as Julio Tello, Luis Eduardo Valcrcel, Rafael Larco
Hoyle, and many others. We see how alliances between Peruvian scholars
and foreign archaeologists were used to advance political and personal
agenda within and outside of the country.
People like me trained in the Anglo-American tradition of archaeology
are aware of how politics, identity, gender, class, and history affect the production of knowledge. But I think that my colleagues from North America
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 1516. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
15
16
Foreword
and Europe will still be surprised by the perspective of a Peruvian intellectual as detailed in this book. I had never been aware, for instance, of the
Klein Commission contracted by the Peruvian government from 1949 to 1955
to advise in the reorganization of the economy and financial structure of the
Peruvian state. From a critical perspective, this was an overt attempt at economic and political colonization by the United States in Peru. The Left was
furious at what was seen as an attempt by the Peruvian oligarchy to ally with
the corporate and military groups in the United States. It was in this context
that the Fulbright Commission supported substantial research in Peru. From
an American perspective, perhaps a bit of a naive one, this represented an
opportunity to do research in one of the richest archaeological areas of the
world in conjunction with our Peruvian colleagues. But from a critical Left
perspective, importing or imposing North American archaeology on
the country was part of a comprehensive strategy of rightist politics in the
country. The view that archaeological knowledge production was intimately
connected to Cold War politics pervades this book.
We find that the arrival of processual archaeologists in the 1980s was
viewed as a hegemonic response to the growing popularity of Peruvian and
Spanish social archaeology. I had never really seen myself as a tool of repression, yet this is how many of my colleagues, particularly from Chicago and
Michigan, were perceived by the Peruvian Left. We also see how the internal
struggle between the two primary centers of archaeology in contemporary
PeruSan Marcos University and la Pontificia Universidad Catlica del
Per (pucp)played out from the 1980s to the present day. As in the United
States in the last generation, there is a tension between public and private
universities. In Peru, the neoliberal agenda and the devastating effects of
Sendero Luminoso terrorism severely hurt the archaeological program at
San Marcos. The tensions and struggles of the 1980s and the Fujimori government resonate to the present day.
This is a marvelous book, rich in content and interpretative sophistication. Any archaeologist who considers working in South America should
read this book. And anyone interested in the history of ideas and the role of
archaeological knowledge in our daily lives will find this a fascinating read.

Charles Stanish
Introduction: The Crisscrossed Past
he history of archaeology can be seen as a large and open field

crisscrossed by thousands of paths made by different people over
time. As these people pursued their personal and professional goals,
their journeys were conditioned, limited, influenced, or biased by a series
of ideas, norms, other people, and innumerable external events both within
and beyond their control. At the same time, new paths were created while
older roads were cleaned, paved, and even erased by others. This landscape
of the past, to complete our metaphor, is full of tracks left by archaeologists
and others involved in one way or another with the pursuit of the past. The
intellectual history of these paths requires us to establish and revisit the
paths created by their makers. Some will be well-worn and well-known
pathsothers less sobut in the end they all combine to create a rich narrative to be explored.
Obviously, we are still far from a definitive history of Peruvian archaeology, or even archaeology in its entirety.1 However, it is a goal that we must
continuously pursue because this history is constantly being created and
re-created. Some of our colleagues have already begun this work in seminars,
academic meetings, and publications. This book is a contribution to that history written from a specific personal and historical perspective, an attempt
to highlight the principal players in the history of Peruvian archaeology.
Almost 25 years ago, the Canadian archaeologist Bruce Trigger (1989b)
published his History of Archaeological Thought, a book that sparked my initial
interest in the history of archaeology. However, despite the general excellence
of Triggers work, one gets the clear impression of a largely Euro-American
rights reserved.
17
18
perspective. With only tangential reference to the great Julio C. Tello, for instance, Peruvian archaeology was relegated to being an exotic land where
archaeologists came to test European and American theories and methodologies. Yet Peru is a country where archaeology developed its own character
and nuances. Certainly, from the very beginning, Peruvian scholars contributed to the canon of archaeological knowledge, both theoretical and empirical. I assiduously avoid any kind chauvinist position or, worse, a nationalism
that would exclude people simply because of their place of origin. Yet it is
important to understand the trajectory of archaeological practice carried
out in Peru vis vis a strong foreign presence that has dominated the field
for decades.
Even though this saturation of so many foreigners could be seen as a
negative, one positive result was that Peruvian archaeology emerged as an
internationally recognized place to conduct research. Many investigators
practiced forms of archaeology developed in other countries far from the
Andes; Peru became a country crisscrossed by many different archaeologists
and archaeological traditions. In fact, as we will see, many of the great theories used in other parts of the world were also applied in Peru. Likewise,
methodologies such as settlement surveys were developed and/or refined in
the vast Peruvian deserts, where preservation is so spectacular. And certainly,
as one can clearly see from the constant references to archaeology in the
popular press, such as National Geographic magazine, Peru is a very special
place, thanks to the discoveries of Machu Picchu, the Nazca Lines, and the
Lord of Sipn, which have been constantly in the public eye since the very
beginning of archaeological exploration.
As we will also see, a vast quantity of objects from Peru has filled the
museum galleries of the world, particularly in Europe, from practically the
first moment of contact (Cabello 1993). This one-way trafficking in ancient
art expanded to North America by the end of the nineteenth century (Bruhns
and Kelker 2010:12). This artifact diaspora served to cement the relationships
(not necessarily positive) between Peruvians and their rich archaeological
heritage with collectors and researchers around the globe. This would be one
of the important social contexts from which Peruvian archaeology would
later emerge. From a postcolonial perspective, this book demonstrates how
the relationship between Peruvians and foreigners generated, through the
extensive collections, a notion of the prehispanic past in the country. The
creation of this historical narrative was clearly influenced byand depended
uponrelationships with more economically developed countries like Great
Britain, France, the United States, and Germany.
Introduction: The Crisscrossed Path
19
This book seeks to historicize Peruvian archaeology within a critical

framework. The idea is to look at the large paths walked by the investigators
of the Peruvian past at the end of the nineteenth century and throughout the
twentieth, and to end with a series of critical reflections on the nature of contemporary Peruvian archaeology. This book adopts a classic style to focus on
the grand individuals of history, but it likewise recognizes that these were
not the only actors in this narrative.2 To that end, I will discuss many of the
lesser-known paths to provide a broader view of this history.
The reader will notice that there is not any rigid structure to each chapter. Certainly, in each chapter I try to lay out the social and historical context
in which these actors lived, particularly those that were officials in the successive governments of the country. I believe that the relationship between
archaeologists and political power is a key factor in the history of the discipline. I recognize the important links, both direct and indirect, between the
construction of the past and political power, particularly as it reproduces or
contests dominant ideologies.3 In some cases, these affiliations helped, but
in later years they indicate an intellectual decline and a fall from the national
scene. In this sense, the social networks in which researchers interacted
were profoundly important, particularly those in the capital of Lima. It is
also important to understand the financial situations of many researchers,
which permitted them to train as intellectuals and maintain their lives while
conducting their work. I will then look at a series of individuals and groups
who interacted with Peruvian archaeology, likewise taking note of the international networks that, as we will see, attracted many Peruvian scholars
so that they could be recognized and their research studied outside of the
country. I am not interested in detailed biographies of individuals except as
this information reflects on their work.
Finally, I address the effect private contract firms have had on Peruvian
archaeology. Even though we find ourselves in the age of information in the
twenty-first century, these companies conduct fieldwork but leave few reports of what they found. This can be seen in the long list of permits granted
by the Peruvian state to conduct research, many of which have been compiled by Rogger Ravines (2006), where one can clearly see that the number
of field projects vastly outnumber the published research on those projects.
As you will see in this book, Peruvian archaeology has captivated many
people, including me. My hope is that this crisscrossed past will captivate
you too.
Chapter 1
The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru
Introduction
nterest in the central Andean past, in the area that would later become
Peru, goes back to the prehispanic period, when societies such as the
Tiwanaku and the Inca used sites and special places, known as huacas,
as a means to create historical narratives for themselves.1 This common historical phenomenon served to justify and legitimize the political structure
of dominant social elite of these societies. Thus, this interest in the past is
based, as in other areas of the world (Egypt, Rome, China, India, etc.), on
the need to give depth to time and to create cultural roots through iconic
archaeological cultures, sites, and archaeological objects.
However, since we have no written sources in the precolumbian Andean
world, it is only since 1532 that we can actually understand the intentions of
the individuals and institutions responsible for linking the past with their
contemporary social and political world. Thus, the first Spanish chroniclers
were also responsible for generating some of the first intellectual linkages
of their contemporary world with that of the ancient past as they saw it. For
example, Miguel de Estetes ([1534] 1891) account of the journey of Hernando
Pizarro from Cajamarca to Pachacamac in early 1533 is a significant case in
point. It relates the social and political dynamics that occurred at this key
oracle center, an important Inca and pre-Inca site located a few miles south
of Lima, which would become the capital of the Viceroyalty of Peru. He observes, for example, the village seems to be ancient, due to the fallen buildings that are in it (Estete [1534] 1891:133). This is one of the first instances
in the early historical documents in which a writer differentiates between
buildings in use and those that had been abandoned and therefore were older.
rights reserved.
20
21
In a similar manner, the chronicles of Pedro Cieza de Len ([1553] 2005) are
important documents precisely because he takes the time to distinguish
between and Inca and pre-Inca buildings and settlements. While this may
strike the modern observer as somewhat self-evident, it was a major observation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In a world that the West
considered only about 6,000 years old, the discovery of societies that did not
have historical records was quite significant.
One document that has unique cultural meaning and that has been compared with other sacred books such as the Old Testament, the Popol Vuh, or
the epic of Gilgamesh (Millones and Mayer 2012:11) is the anonymous text attributed to Francisco de vila (1598?) known as the Huarochir Manuscript
(Arguedas [1966] 2007). This text relates a myth describing huacas and their
form of existence in the world alongside humans. These extirpators of idolatries such as vila provide valuable information about archaeological sites
and objects in their effort to erase indigenous beliefs and practices. In spite
of the huge damage that this extirpation campaign by the Catholic Church
wrought on the customs and life of the indigenous peoples, it also constitutes the first source of ethnographic information of Andean societies.
Later, during the Spanish colonial period and viceroyalty, the looting of
archaeological sites became one of the many exploitative practices in Peru
similar to mining and guano exploitation. Looting of huacas was widespread,
as described by Jorge Zevallos Quiones (1994) for the north coast. However,
beyond bureaucratic and tax documents, there are no additional records of
such activities.
As Lisa Trever (2012; also see Schaedel 1949) has shown, the Bishop of
Trujillo, Baltasar Martnez Compan, established one of the first idioms of
archaeological representation in Peru using the sites and archaeological objects of the north coast in Trujillo del Per, published between 1781 and 1789.
The watercolor images in the book link this work directly with contemporary
European traditions that also dealt with archaeological remains, such as
those about Pompeii or Herculaneum in Naples (Pillsbury and Trever 2008).
Despite these early attempts at archaeological descriptions and representations, it is only with the advent of the Republic from 1821 that we see
systematic efforts by individuals and institutions to create a deeper historical
sense in the Peruvian nation. These efforts were realized under the influence
of foreign investigators, or within largely European theoretical constructs.
North American scholars at this time effectively borrowed from European
models, which were indirectly imposed in Peru. Peruvian scholars at this
time likewise sought to establish a postcolonial history freed from the influence of Spain; however, they could not escape the larger European intellectual
22
climate. In the absence of precolumbian documents, Peruvianists would

have to look at the remains of the past before the arrival of Pizarros army.
Peru in the Nineteenth Century

Like many of the Latin American countries that overcame colonial domination, Peru began its republican history inspired by the ideals of the European
republics like France, especially the liberal values embodied in their political
constitutions. Therefore, in the case of Peru, from the beginning of the Republic in 1821, but more specifically from the final expulsion of the Spanish
Royalist troops after the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824, the country embarked
on a path to create an autonomous and independent postcolonial political
reality. Its political life was marked by the emergence of warlords, a time
Alberto Flores Galindo (1999) referred to as the authoritarian tradition. The
national economy in the nineteenth century also was still heavily dependent
upon foreign capital, especially from Britain. The process of postcolonial
state-building in Peru was at times painfully slow, in fits and starts, as the
new Republic sought to create its own reality.
In fact, the history of Peru after 1824 until the middle of the nineteenth
century is marked by the unsuccessful search for a viable form of government and a national economic policy that labored under the colonial legacy.
The failure to clearly establish a political structure and the lack of a true
republican democracy led to a number of political experiments, such as the
Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, which lasted a few short years from 1836
to 1839.
Warlord interests drove the bulk of political activity in this period, creating a volatile climate that shaped the structure of the state and impeded the
development of the national economy. In this context, the various governments of the time did little more than support and protect the warlords and
safeguard the interests of foreign capital enterprises, especially that of the
British, through the mineral, guano, and salitre (sodium nitrate) concessions.
In fact, the principal commercial houses in Lima were British, and as a consequence the social elite of Lima adopted European values much more than
Andean ones.
As Julio Cotler (1978) reminds us, the change from the Viceroyalty to the
Republic left a colonial legacy that burdened Peru through its struggles for
independence and created economic and political contradictions throughout its history. Therefore, while there was a political agenda that promoted
the incorporation of republican ideals in Peru, inspired by liberal European
developments and notions of progress grounded in technology, economic,
23
political, and ideological practices (particularly the Catholic religion), the

culture continued to reflect an internalized colonial mentality that did not
permit national integration of the many social classes. The cultural climate
was intensely racialized,2 a means by which the elite and their government
marginalized most citizens. The debate between conservatives and liberals
(effectively two points of view shared by the elite that excluded most people)
represents this situation during the nineteenth century.
Later, there was a relative period of calm aided by an ephemeral economic
boom in the middle of the nineteenth century fueled by the exploitation of
guano. This was particularly clear during the government of Ramn Castilla
(18551862). This important moment of national consolidation intensified
with the first democratically elected president, the civilian Manuel Pardo
(18721876). With Pardo, we see a series of reforms of the Peruvian state;
because of this, the intellectual climate in Lima surged again.
It was in this context that Antonio Raimondi, Italian by birth, came to
Peru on July 28, 1850. He helped generate a new intellectual life in Lima,
especially from his position as Chair of Historia Natural en la Facultad de
Medicina de San Fernando. This position gave him a new relationship with
the Limea intellectual elite. At the same time, he became acquainted with
the provincial intellectuals while he explored the country. Raimondi focused
on the rich Peruvian flora and fauna, an activity that had commercial implications for both the Peruvian state and foreign concerns. His subsequent
relationship with President Pardo (Villacorta 2008) was also vital for his enhanced intellectual and political prestige in Peru; his prominent participation in national development projects is a good example of this. Along with
the early Atlas Geogrfico del Per (1865) by Mariano Paz Soldn,3 the news,
reports, and images published by Raimondi (1874) from his natural and
historical explorations of the country generated the first significant images
that impressed the urban elite of Peru in the second half of the nineteenth
century. Raimondi conducted classical natural history research, cataloging botanical and animal species, and also documented the rich mineral
resources of the country.4
A turning point in the national economy was fueled by salitre and guano,
especially in the far south of Tarapac: the war with Chile, known as the War
of the Pacific, which took place between 1879 and 1883.5 At the end of the war,
after the occupation of Peru by Chilean troops, looting occurred and a tense
coexistence was established between the Chileans and Peruvians, mediated
by a puppet government. Later, Peru fully recovered its political autonomy
and began a period called the National Reconstruction (18831895). During
24
that time, the Peruvian governments priorities were understandably focused

on immediate needs in the aftermath of the war.
It is important to note that among the causes of the loss of the war was
the supposed inferiority of the indigenous race, described as a burden on
national development (Flores Galindo [2005] 2010:195). The debate about
the inferiority of the Indians would continue throughout the end of the
nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, including a number
of proposals for solutions to this problem (Flores Galindo [2005] 2010:195).
Despite this intensely stressful period in Peruvian society, marked by internal
political and economic crises and the war with Chile, it is in this second half
of the nineteenth century that the earliest steps toward a coherent program
of archaeological study developed in Peru.
Archaeology in the Nineteenth Century

In the nineteenth century, many Latin American countries began to search
for their national identities in the prehispanic past in their postcolonial
world (Daz-Andreu 2007:79). In this regard, although still quite young, the
Peruvian Republic decreed laws to protect its archaeological patrimony,
including the foundation of the National Museum (Tello 1967a:1). At this time,
prominent members of the Lima elite and other cities such as Trujillo, Arequipa, and Cusco created important collections, some purely antiquarian,
but others focused on the Peruvian past and the protection of this patrimony. In spite of this broad interest in objects, there still was not a clear vision
of archaeology as we have today. If there was any such vision, it was shared
by people who had contact with places like London, Paris, or Berlin, cities
where Enlightenment concepts were created and promoted.
If any one person attempted to create what we now call a national archaeology at that time, it would be the Arequipan Mariano Eduardo de Rivero
y Ustariz. In 1826, he began to form what would effectively become in 1836 the
first Natural History Museum (Lumbreras 1986:122), which included indigenous antiquities (Tello 1967a:10). Later, with Johan Jacob von Tschudi,6 he
published the celebrated book Antigedades Peruanas (Peruvian Antiquities;
Rivero and Tschudi [1851] 1853).7 This was an important effort at this time
to explain the prehispanic Peruvian societies, though mainly the Inca, with
descriptions of objects and sites throughout the country. He also included
descriptions of Colombian and Bolivian objects as well. In this book, sites
such as Chan Chan, Huanuco Pampa, Pachacamac, Hatuncolla, and Tiwanaku were not only described, but were often accompanied with drawings and
plans (Rivero and Tschudi [1851] 1853) (Figures 1 and 2).
25
Rivero y Ustariz did not focus solely on archaeology; in the great natural
history tradition of nineteenth-century Europe, he also dealt with biology
and geology. Much of this material was collected with the celebrated Alexander
Von Humboldt, the German naturalist who conducted a world voyage of exploration (Contreras and Cueto 2007:115). Likewise, Federico Kauffmann
Doig (2000:15), following the historian Csar Coloma (1994:38), points out
that in the second third of the 19th century, Rivero y Ustariz excavated a
beautiful textile from the Necropolis of Ancn that was later acquired by the
Louvre.
For some historians, this scientific tradition is a kind of protoarchaeology
(Rivasplata 2010). According to Stefanie Gnger:
In 1851, Mariano de Rivero published Antigedades Peruanas in collaboration with Johann Jakob von Tschudi, who always recognized Rivero
as the primary intellectual author of the book.[8] The book was already in
circulation in 1853 as a German translation and it is proven that the
protagonists of the present study [Reiss, Stubel, and Uhle] had read it
(Gnger 2006:86).
Gnger makes three main observations: (1) Rivero found himself in a
climate in which discussions of the past, at least through the acquisition of
antiquities, was a relevant topic of discussion among the Lima political class,
Figure 1. Volume II of Antigedades peruanas (1851) by Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y
Ustariz and Johan Jacob von Tschudi.
26
Figure 2. Inca ruins from Antigedades peruanas (1851) by Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y
Ustariz and Johan Jacob von Tschudi.
as well as in the other cities of Peru;9 (2) his work did not go unnoticed in
other intellectual spheres, especially in western and central Europe, where
his book was published and translated; and (3) later investigators came to
understand Peruvian archaeology through these publications.
As Contreras and Cueto (2007:115) indicate, intellectuals such as Rivero
y Ustariz did not find themselves in a favorable environment for their scientific or cultural activities. This was caused by lack of support by the various
Peruvian governments, a lack of resources in general, and the dominance of
the military and legal elite (as opposed to other intellectuals) in public posts.
Yet in spite of this, Rivero y Ustariz continued gaining new knowledge about
Peruvian prehistory in an era that Michel Foucault (1979:185) aptly describes
as one in which intellectuals were not focused on specifics, but on universals. Rivero y Ustariz dedicated himself not just to archaeology, but to other
fields as well. As Luis Felipe Villacorta says:
Only the brilliance of the distinguished Eduardo Rivero y Ustarz and
later that of Nicols Fernndez de Pirola padre, shined in history of
national sciences during the first part of the 19th century, and unfortunately their efforts and talents found more fertile ground in the administrative tasks of the State than in the scientific investigation and
dissemination of the national natural riches (Villacorta 2008:225).
Raimondi also conducted studies on archaeological sites and objects
(Raimondi 1874). Within his European natural history perspective, he would
27
begin to recognize the importance of archaeology for Peruvian national

identity. It is important to mention the other natural history travelers in
the second half of the nineteenth century who conducted explorations and
published their findings. These include E. George Squier (who stayed in Peru
between 1863 and 1865),10 Charles Wiener (who was in Peru from 1876 to
1877),11 Thomas Hutchinson (who traveled to Peru from 1871 to 1872),12 and
Ernst Middendorf (who traveled through Peru and Bolivia between 1885 and
1888).13 All of these scholars worked within the broader natural history tradition of the time in which archaeology was just one aspect of their work.14
In a certain sense, Alphons Stbel and Wilhelm Reiss (Figures 3 and 4)15
were different from the other natural history travelers or explorers of their
time. These German geologists conducted their first archaeological excavations in Peru in 1875, four years before the conflict with Chile. While there
certainly were earlier excavations, such as those by Charles Wiener (Riviale
2003:543), Reiss and Stbels excavations were much more systematic and,
most important, were the best documented up to that time. Their book, Las
Necrpolis de Ancn en Per, stands as a very fine piece of descriptive work,
perhaps the best of its period. Antiquities collectors, principally European
immigrants who amassed huge collections, such as the French Frdric
Quesnell and the Germans Arthur Baessler and Wilhelm Gretzer (Hoffmann
2007; Wiener 1880:54 in Kauffmann 2000:16), continued to excavate Ancn.
Excavations at Ancn were facilitated by the rail link between Lima and Chancay, making this attractive beach resort accessible to the residents of Lima.
Figure 3. Alphons Stbel, 1871.
Figure 4. Wilhelm Reiss.
28
It is critical to note that these foreign travelers to the Andean world

shared the western perspective reinforcing a colonialist worldview. They
helped generate an exotic view of this part of the world, a practice, as Edward Said ([1997] 2002) notes, was a critical intellectual tradition of western
societies from the sixteenth century. Paula Trevisan and Luis Massa (2009)
note, regarding intellectuals living in Peru who investigated the main issues
related to archaeology in the last decades of the nineteenth century:
Squier, Stbel/Reiss and Wiener, representatives of the United States,
Germany and France respectively, are some of the many foreigners who
at the end of the 19th century traveled throughout Peru and South America. Three visions of lo Andino [were] constructed from the notion of the
different, the new, the exotic. Without discarding the tacit prejudices of
the 16th century chroniclers, and nourished by the stigmata of the Enlightenment [sic]. Those in which the American man was an otherness that
should reinforce the values of the West, another that should be subordinated to the [hegemonic] categories of travelers and their readers. The
noble savage, the good barbarian who did not yet know the benefits of
Western culture, and in his ignorance he oscillated between brutality and
flashes of genius; someone who could better his condition if he were
subject to new canons of behavior. This principle at once repositioned
the Western model . . . (Trevisan and Massa 2009:43).
As we shall see in the next chapter, Max Uhle likewise fit within this intellectual tradition but began to generate a unique vision for archaeology, fundamentally based on a Western positivist epistemology; such an approach
was inherently and inextricably linked to hegemonic academic institutions
both foreign and Peruvian.
Chapter 2
The (Western) Foundation of Peruvian Archaeology:

Max Uhle and Cultural Evolutionism
espite the contributions of those mentioned in the previous

chapter, beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, there
is consensus among the archaeological community in Peru that Max
Uhle (18561944) effectively established the discipline (Figure 5).1 John
Rowes influential biography of Uhle (1954) reinforced this assumption for
both archaeologists and nonspecialists, as did the work of Eloy Linares Mlaga (1964) and, in the last 20 years, the work of Peter Kaulicke (1998a, 2010).
I also believe that Max Uhle can be considered the father of Peruvian
archaeology, with the caveat that this was an archaeology defined and established as a Western science in the hegemonic sense of the term. After all,
archaeological science was invented in the West, and it is natural that a
foreignersomeone educated in the Euro-American traditionintroduced
this research tradition in the study of Perus prehistory.
Uhles alleged paternity of Peruvian archaeology is also based on premises
already suggested by Stefanie Gnger (2007). Most significant was the fact
that he was a German deeply immersed in the then-modern scientific tradition. Uhle arrived in Peru when contemporary science was heavily steeped in
a positivist tradition in which the soundness of an argument was based on
data-driven logic.
We have to remember that this positivist philosophy of science reigned
like an ideology at the end of the nineteenth century (Ragas 2008:155). In
Peru, some intellectuals began to adopt positivism in the study of society,
particularly the social Darwinist framework so popular at that time (Contreras and Cueto 2007:1825; Fell 1998:302). Certainly, other American countries such as the United States (Patterson 2002:41), Argentina, and Brazil
rights reserved.
29
30
enthusiastically adopted social Darwinism. Social Darwinism served as a

means to explain the backwardness of some countries, again focusing on the
supposed racial problems of these societies that were held back by inferior
races. In the case of Peru and other Andean republics, this referred to the indigenous peoples, who were considered an obstacle to progress. In fact, Peruvian immigration law in 1893 was geared to attract European colonists to the
country, providing for economic incentives including travel stipends and
land grants. This law was not successful compared with similar incentives in
countries such as Brazil and Argentina, which were more attractive to European immigrants (Contreras and Cueto 2007:185). Thus, in the environment
of the late nineteenth century, the concepts of social Darwinism dovetailed
with the dominant positivist philosophy of the time.
In this context, it is clear that Max Uhle had to be the father of Peruvian
archaeology because he provided a coherent epistemological and theoretical
framework, then current in European and American science, for Andean archaeology. Before Uhle, we had descriptions, narratives, and opinions about the
past, such as those provided by travelers such as Charles Wiener, Paul Marcoy,
or Middendorf.2 Perhaps among all of these, the one most sympathetic to a
scientific method was Adolph Bandelier, who conducted excavations on the
Islands of the Sun and Moon in Lake Titicaca.3 He proposed, for instance, that
the graves were coherent spatial units, similar to what other researchers in
Europe had proposed. These scholars recognized the principle of association:
that all things in a similar context belong to the same time or space.
Alphons Stbel and Wilhelm Reiss
may have also arrived at the same principle based upon their excavations in the
necropolis of Ancn. However, although
they noted stratigraphic relationships
and provided drawings of tombs of different types and contents, they still did
not offer a chronological sequence: Max
Uhle did. He raised the issue of chronology, which was later taken up by Alfred
Kroeber, a student of Franz Boas. Thus,
we owe the first relative chronological
sequence for Peruvian archaeology to
Max Uhle. He presented data from a
Figure 5. Max Uhle.
The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology
31
systematic excavation in Pachacamac, but he was also working under a philosophy that assumed all societies pass through a series of stages as a universal principle. This was of course within the framework created by Lewis
Henry Morgan in the United States that goes back to the philosophers Georg
W. F. Hegel (Lull and Mic 2007:118) and Johann Joachim Winckelman from
an art-historical perspective (Gran Aymerich [1998] 2001:42) or Christian
Thomsen in prehistory (Trigger 2006:121). The basic logic of this evolutionary philosophy is that societies evolve from simple to complex, from savagery to civilization.
This was the logic of science then current in the middle of the nineteenth
century. For Peru, Uhle was the first to propose anything like what we could
call science in archaeology, and it was in this positivist tradition that he
worked. Thus, any study of the past had to operate within this basic positivist
framework, a generator of empirical knowledge that resulted in the need to
organize objects and archaeological data. It is also important to recognize
the taxonomies used by the naturalists, especially in France and England
in the nineteenth century (Larson 2006). Uhles accomplishment is that he
merged a Western way to view the past with an accepted scientific method
in an unquestionably hegemonic manner from a Peruvian perspective.
The key point is that this hegemonic science was fostered within academic circles in the Andes by Europeans and Americans, and was also presented in international arenas such as world expositions4 or scientific meetings such as the Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (International
Congress of Americanists)5 (Gnger 2009:71011). These arenas, representing
the modernist viewpoint of Western progress, became stages for these very
ideas. Often intellectuals returning from an International Congress of Americanists meeting applied these ideas to their local professional practices.
Uhle6 and Tello, the two principal scholars of the past at the beginning of the
twentieth century, used these arenas to learn new approaches as well as to
disseminate their own innovative ideas.
A primary arena for the establishment of these Western scientific principles in Peru was the Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima (Geographic Society of
Lima), established in 1888 (Cueto 1992). One of its objectives was to help create a new nation through the study of Perus geography as well as natural and
social resources. This information would be incorporated into the collective
imagination of Peru (Lpez-Ocn 2002).
Uhle, like other intellectuals in America, found fertile ground for his
professional work. As foreigners (outsiders), they were in a country where
they had no roots or political baggage. In the beginning, they had government
32
support in getting positions, and national intellectuals did not perceive their
presence as a threat. This was also the case for Uhle, as we will see later in this
book.
Uhle and the First Horizon Concept:

Style as the Empirical Base of Archaeological Logic
But how is it that Uhle could create a systematic framework to address for
the first time the deep archaeology of Perus prehispanic past? To understand
this it is necessary to analyze some of his work prior to Pachacamac. By 1881,
Uhle had obtained his first job as assistant director of the Zoological and
Anthropological Museum (now Museum for Ethnology) in Dresden. His
anthropological publications from these nearly seven years of work were influenced by the nature of the collections, where he wrote about the peoples of
Malay and New Guinea. Those years in the Dresden Museum coincided with
the publication of Das Todtenfeld von Ancon (Reiss and Stbel 1887) (with a
simultaneous English translation: The Burial Grounds of Ancon), the first scientific report of an excavation in Peru. Written by geologists Wilhelm Reiss
and Alphons Stbel, the book was based upon their fieldwork in 1874 and
1875. The artifacts from Reiss and Stbels excavations were housed in the
Figure 6. Museum fr Vlkerkunde, Berln.
33
Figure 7. Adolph Bastian.
Berlin Museum. Uhle knew Stbel

well; he lived in Dresden and inspired
Uhle to pursue Americanist studies.
Uhle left the Dresden Museum in 1888
to become an assistant at the Knigliches Museum fr Vlkerkunde (Royal
Museum of Ethnology) (Figure 6) in
Berlin, led by Adolph Bastian (Figure
7).7 Uhle remained in Berlin until 1891,
expanding his studies to include the
Andean materials in the museum and
publishing an article about Tiwanaku.
Berlin was one the best intellectual
centers to inspire Peruvian studies. It
is noteworthy that Bastian had published a book titled Die Culturlander
des Alten America (18781889). Likewise, Wilhelm Reiss was also present
in this period and shared the same interests with the director of the museum.
Returning to Germany, Adolf Bastian (18261905), founder of the Berlin
Museum, had the good sense to commission Uhle to travel to South America
to investigate the spread of Quechua culture and the archaeology of the Incas.
The Prussian government also sponsored this trip (Gnger 2006). To fulfill
his mission, Uhle first went to Belgium and set off for South America from
the Port of Antwerp on November 14, 1892, bound for Buenos Aires. He arrived a few months later at the age of 36 and immediately went to northwest
Argentina. During this stay in Argentina, he settled in the province of Catamarca, collecting artifacts in the area. In April 1893, he sent the first lot of
artifacts to Berlin. He stayed in Salta for a while and then went to Bolivia.
Between 1893 and 1894 he visited a number of archaeological sites in Bolivia.
One of his objectives in this country was to investigate the Uru ethnic group
located in the high altiplano in the region from the Lake Titicaca Basin south
to the Lake Poop area. Following Stbels footsteps, he went to Tiwanaku,
where he caused a minor scandal by accusing the local military garrison of
using the Tiwanaku monoliths for target practice, an accusation that was
apparently quite true. Uhle formally protested to the Bolivian government.
34
This marks the first steps taken by modern professionals to protect Tiwanakusand, in a sense the entirety of Andeancultural patrimony. But it also
marked him as a nuisance by the military and government authorities and
prevented him from ever excavating at the site again.
He returned to La Paz, but was effectively stranded there because the
promised funding from Berlin was withdrawn. In 1894, he began a professional relationship with Sara Yorke, curator of Egyptian and Mediterranean
collections and secretary of the University Archaeological Association in
Philadelphia, and the wife of Cornelius Stevenson. Stevenson and William
Pepper became his main benefactors and mentors in Philadelphia (Erickson
2010:95).
It took some time, however, to receive this funding. Uhle therefore
concentrated on learning Aymara grammar while he waited for the
money. During his stay, in 1894, an ethnologist working for the American Museum of Natural History (amnh) in New York arrived in La Paz:
Adolph Bandelier. Bandelier, whom we have already mentioned in the
previous chapter, was also interested in working in Tiwanaku (Fischer
2010:54) and, in fact, had been commissioned by amnh for this purpose
(Loza 2004:155). Both of these larger-than-life personalities maintained
a cordial relationship but were critical of each others work, especially
because both were out to collect materials for their respective museums collections. Toward the end of 1894 and in 1895, Uhle spent most of
his time working in the Bolivian altiplano, concentrating on the shores
and islands of Lake Titicaca (Loza 2004:155). Although Uhle made many
observations and field notes, it was Bandelier who finally published
his work on the area in 1910. The Islands of Titicaca and Koani, a classic
of highland archaeology, was written in English and published in the
United States. The archaeological materials from this and other excavations, as well as materials purchased by Bandelier, are found today in
the amnh, his home institution at the time.
After failing in his original goal to excavate at Tiwanaku, Uhle resigned from the Royal Museum of Ethnology in Berlin (Fischer 2010:55).
He then accepted a contract from the University of Pennsylvania in
1895 and prepared for a trip to Lima, arriving in the city in 1896. In this
bustling metropolis, his first task was to submit an account of his trip
to Bolivia and the Peruvian countryside, along with a report on the
language of the Urus of the altiplano. This was published in the newspaper Globus in Braunschweig, Germany.Once in Peru, Uhle began his
archaeological work in Ancn and Pachacamac, and excavated until
February 1897.
35
An important observation is that Uhle, for the first time, effectively recognized the first horizon styles in Bolivia and Peru. He defined two horizons that
were clearly evident at Pachacamac. Uhle had arrived in Bolivia8 already
knowing that there was a pre-Inca culture, the Tiwanaku, having worked on
collections from this site in Germany. As mentioned, along with Stbel, he
had published a work about this site and he understood that related materials were found over a wide area (Stbel and Uhle 1892). Uhle therefore had an
intellectual framework before even arriving in South America that there were
at least two principal prehispanic styles: Inca and Tiwanaku. So it was indeed
a question of style. In general, most archaeological explanation up to that
point was focused on style at some level, a result of both diffusionist and positivist thinking. Uhle absorbed all of these intellectual currents and had conducted his excavations in Peru within this general framework. But is important to also realize that this framework informed the scientific missions from
the University Museum at Pennsylvania in all parts of the world (Patterson
2002:49). With Uhle now affiliated with this venerable institution, we can see
how this theory and method was reinforced in his work. Penn had also established an archaeological laboratory where much of the Pachacamac materials
were sent, creating an entire building to house the many artifacts collected
from around the world (Erickson 2010).9 It is important to also point out that
all of this was possible because of the direct financial support from the university. The same type of arrangement would later characterize Uhles relationship with the University of California at Berkeley, where he was able to
study the collections made by North American scholars such as Alfred Kroeber. Uhles relationship with Berkeley
cannot be understood without understanding the financial support given to
him by Phoebe Hearst (Kaulicke 2010:13)
(Figure 8). The collections at Berkeley,
as we will see in the following chapter,
helped to substantially refine the Peruvian Horizon styles.
Uhles scientific agenda in Peru also
included the analysis of the time depth
of Peruvian prehistory. To accomplish
this, it was necessary to recognize
the changes that had occurred over
Figure 8. Phoebe Hearst, circa 1890.
36
time. The idea of deep time (before the Incas and Tiwanaku) in Peruvian
archaeology in particular, and Americanist archaeology in general, was very
much part of his research program. As noted earlier, Uhle had written In
Americanist studies, the first thing that had to be done was to introduce the
idea of time, to get people to admit that the types could change (Uhle in
Rowe 1954:v). To achieve this, Uhle had to test these new ideas with empirical
evidence from his archaeological work on sites that could demonstrate these
changes, especially ceramic style shifts over time (Rowe 1998). But how was
it possible to perform this task with the technical means at his disposal at
that time? By the middle of the nineteenth century, relative chronologies had
already been tested in Europe. This was done through the identification of
prehistoric ages that were defined by the material of the artifacts, with stone,
bronze, and iron being the most obvious. This Three-Age classification was
very broad, and styles became an important tool in European archaeology
used even today (Rowley-Conwy 2006; various authors in Lozny 2011).
Style is a set of associated features expressed in art. This is important because it always undergirds archaeological explanation; it is from style that
higher levels of archaeological explanation are based. As Trigger (2006)
notes, style is part of a theory based in the object itself; it is the most concrete
and the lowest level from which one constructs explanations. Archaeologically, the construction of a style presupposes distinct patterns in the form
and decoration of objects, allowing the analyst to construct a coherent group
of elements. However, it is important to note that this concept originally
developed in the history of art and effectively focuses only on the appearance
of the object itself, almost always defined in aesthetic terms (Kroeber 1963:68;
Sackett 1977; Scott 2006; Shanks 1999:4, 2001; Willey [1951] 1970:49). This view
of the history of art influenced the notion of aesthetics as representing the
spirit of the age (in the sense used by Hegel), as well as an evolutionary approach as an inherent succession of styles (Bardavio and Gonzles 2003:50;
Trigger 2006:57).
In Uhles time, methods were simpler than in later decades. He first observed some concordance in the artifacts and the architecture over an area.
From this he inferred diffusion from some pristine place, creating a horizon.
Uhle recognized a great Inca Horizon materially expressed as architectural and ceramic similarities. But he also saw a pattern that was earlier
(stratigraphically under) than the Inca expansion and which was expressed
in iconographic motifs, most strongly on pottery. Therefore, it was logical in
this moment for Uhle to propose that the Staff God seen on the Gate of the
Sun in Tiwanaku and other Tiwanaku objects was the same as what he was
37
seeing on ceramics from Pachacamac. This was his empirical evidence confirming his hypothesis that there existed a great Tiwanaku empire that had
spread throughout the Andes and to the Peruvian coast. In this way, Uhle
saw an extensive pre-Inca civilization flourishing well before the Cusco state
emerged. This allowed him to further suggest an evolutionary development
following the logic of the timethat societies evolved from simple to complex. Tiwanaku was found in the south, while the Inca materials were found
in a larger area that covered all of the Tiwanaku distribution. Hence, this fit
into the evolutionary model of development.
As Uhle pointed out in 1900:
Modern science has opened up entirely new ways to explore the ancient
civilizations of the Americas as well as other branches of human knowledge. Not long ago it was believed that the history of the Inca Empire
comprised the entire ancient history of Peru. Garcilaso and other notable writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, relying on the
tradition of the Inca Empire, agreed that those were the first civilizers of
Peru; before that time Peru was only occupied by savage tribes, to which
Incas brought civilization. But we have observed characteristics distinct
from the Inca for some time at ancient monuments and from tombs
scattered across the country that can be considered inferior to those
from Cuzco in the level of civilization. It is absolutely impossible and
contrary to human evolution that such a high civilization evident in Peru
at the time of its discovery [by Europeans] could be the fruit on only 400
years of development (Uhle cited in Meja Xesspe 1967:xiii).
Uhles modern vision of science, human evolution, and progress paralleled that of other intellectuals throughout Europe and the United States.
This same vision permitted Uhle to come to these conclusions through years
of study in Peruvian archaeology. His scientific publications gave him great
international and national prestige. Uhle, at 44 years of age, was at the height
of his academic career.
Uhle and the National History Museum of Peru

Although Peru declared independence in 1821 and took immediate steps to
construct a postcolonial identity (see Daz-Andreu 2001a), this goal was not
fully institutionalized until the end of the nineteenth century.10 Although the
National Museum was founded as early as 1836, as we saw previously, this
effort was hampered by the vagaries of national politics.
38
In fact, after its initial push by Rivero y Ustariz, the museum fell into disrepair, as noted in the testimony of the British diplomat Thomas Hutchinson
in 1873:
Turning to the left, beneath the same arcade, I come to a door that was
once green, but is now an indescribable colour, from the must of ages.
This tells, with a label on the outside, that it is El Museo Nacional, the
National Museum. But there is a padlock on it as large, probably, as any in
Newgate, and the porter at the jiorie-cockere does not know anything
about the key. I made a pilgrimage to the door of this museum scores of
times during my residence in Lima, but the lock was always there. Even
Dr. Vigil, at the opposite side of the Patio, knew nothing about it, for it
was not in his department. After the creation of the Society of Fine Arts,
referred to elsewhere, I was one of the committee asked to inspect it, with
a view to the removal of its contents to the Exhibition Palace, for the
formation of a new museum. But my imagination of these was sadly
disappointed. On its walls are hanging portraits of all the Viceroys who
formerly governed in Lima. Outside of these the collection of other
objects was confined to a few hundred birds, some animal monstrosities
of double-headed calves, et voila tout. The dozen or two specimens of
prehistoric crockery-ware, that it had contained, were already sent to the
Exhibition Palace, and the whole was not worth the cost of being
removed. I could not help reflecting on this as a cogent illustration of the
absence of national taste, to say nothing of national pride, in the city of
Limawhere the large Exhibition Palace could be filled with archaeological proofs of the ancient glories of Peru, without going farther than
six to eight miles outside the city walls (Hutchinson 1873:31920).
Later, after moving to the Palacio de la Exposicin, the museum was
sacked in 1881 by Chilean soldiers (Gnger 2009:695). After this loss in the war,
the Peruvian state began its campaign known as the National Reconstruction from 1883 to 1895. As Teodoro Hampe Martnez (1996:141) aptly notes:
Consumed by the debacle of the war with Chile (18791883), the political
class of Lima began a serious analysis of the nature of Peruvian society,
with the aim to understand the causes of the disaster and from this
knowledge come up with a path of national regeneration. In the middle
of this environment surged a strong nationalistic sentiment, nurtured
by the desire to emphasize the most important cultural values of the
country: the language, its traditions, its land. And it is in such circumstances that the first academic institutions were established and which
39
have had a lasting effect to this day. For example, we note that the Peruvian Academy of Language ( formed through the efforts of Ricardo
Palma), was opened solemnly on August 30, 1887 as well as the Geographical Society of Lima, created by executive order [decreto supremo]
on the 22nd of February, 1888. Both of these institutions were promoted
by President Andrs Avelino Cceres as a means to institutionalize these
national goals (Hampe Martnez 1996:141).
This nationalist enterprise continued until the end of the nineteenth century,
led by a generation of intellectuals that largely came from the Lima elite. This
period is known as the Aristocratic Republic (18951919), a time when the political and intellectual elite began a serious interest in the antiquity of Peruvian
Man.11 The Peruvian state institutionalized this interest with the foundation of
the Museo de Historia Nacional (Figure 9) in 1905 during President Jos Pardo y
Barredas first term (19041908). Uhle was contracted for six years to head the
prehistory section of the museum, known at the time as the Archaeology and
Savage Tribes Section (Hampe Martnez 1998).12 This represented a kind of
foundational support for the construction of Peruvian history at the height of
the influence of the aristocracy, a construction based upon archaeological data
(Lumbreras 1998:178; Rowe 1954).
Thus, Pardo y Barredas government issued an executive order on May 6,
1905, authorizing the creation of the Museo de Historia Nacional under the
authority of the Instituto Histrico del Per; the museum was inaugurated
Figure 9. Museum of National History, Lima, 1906.
40
on July 28, 1906.13 The museum would function in the Palacio de la Exposicin
using a building that was originally intended for other purposes.
Uhle gave his famous speech on the importance of legislation for the protection of Perus archaeological heritage during the inauguration (Kaulicke
2010:1516). The flamboyant archaeologist began his work immediately, highlighting the countrys archaeological antiquities and the importance of protecting and collecting them. Although he started out as a section head, Uhle
eventually became the director of the museum (Tello 1967a:75).
As section head, Uhles tasks were principally to receive archaeological objects considered to be the property of the Peruvian state, to increase this collection, and to organize exhibitions of these objects. For his exhibitions, as we
have seen, he used the models from his previous work in the Ethnological Museum of Berlin, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California
at Berkeley. In fact, Uhle already knew which were the main sites that he
should direct his excavations to increase his collections, especially near Lima.
He therefore reinitiated excavations in sites around Lima and excavated
in already known cemeteries such as Isla San Lorenzo and Bellavista in Callao. He also explored the extensive area around Makatampu, a site located
between Colonial and Argentina Avenues. At the same time, Uhle accepted
or bought personal collections from Limeos interested in promoting and
helping the mission of the Museo de Historia Nacional.
Uhle worked by cataloging, identifying, organizing, and grouping the
materials, both chronologically and stylistically, and mounted exhibits in
the Justice Ministry and in the Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima. Between 1908
and 1910 he was again in the field, this time excavating the great mounds of
Arambur and Concha in the archaeological zone located near the presentday San Marcos University (Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos)
(see also chapter 10 and Figure 32). He also was commissioned in 1911 by the
Peruvian government to conduct an exploration of Choquequirao, located
on the right bank of the Apurmac River, and published a series of articles
and gave lectures in academic meetings.
But despite his archaeological work, which clearly increased the Museums archaeological holdings, . . . the economic support of the Government
was limited and insignificant, such as was demonstrated in the 1907 budget
that only lasted until the end of his contract . . . . How could a person of Uhles
stature conduct any work in the laboratory or field with such a small budget? (Tello 1967a:74).
However, a pernicious subtext constantly bedeviled Uhle. His five-year
tenure led to a series of debates among the Lima political class, who did
not take kindly to a foreigner occupying a place as iconic as director of the
41
National History Museum, a position that they felt should be filled by a Peruvian. As Gnger notes:
From the moment that Max Uhle took up his post in Lima, he was
harshly criticized, debated, and questioned by the Lima elite. A detailed
case study of the discourses surrounding Uhle between 1906 and 1911,
and Peruvian memoirs of Uhle from 1912 to 1928, shed light on much
more than personal conflicts or rivalries. Peruvian scholars, politicians,
and intellectuals initially called for Uhle because he was a foreigner
a European and a German. They dismissed him on the basis of the same
argument. A close-up view of the reasons named to employ, dismiss,
praise, and criticize Max Uhle in early-twentieth-century Lima
especially those voiced by government representative and prominent
figures, such as the conservative historians Riva-Agero and Gutirrez
de Quintanilla, and the indigenist scholars Julio C. Tello and Luis E.
Valcrcelhelps to explain major intellectual developments in Perus
relationship with Germany and Europe (Gnger 2007:52).
In the end, vulgar intrigues and the severe budget cuts forced Uhle to resign as director of the Museo de Historia Nacional (Hampe 1998:147). Thus,
Uhle delivered the archaeological patrimony of the museum, which consisted of 8,675 objects, to the government commission presided by Dr. Carlos
Wiesse on December 23, 1911. Emilio Gutirrez de Quintanilla, one of the
members of the Instituto Histrico del Per (an entity that depended upon
the museum), assumed the directorship of the National History Museum in
1912 after Uhle left (Tello 1967a:80). Upon taking control, Gutirrez de Quintanilla opined that the museum had been mismanaged, putting in question
the honesty and efficiency of Professor Uhle (Hampe Martnez 1998:148).
Gutirrez de Quintanilla remained in this post until 1935; as discussed later
in this book, Julio C. Tello also engaged in some controversial polemics with
the director of the museum, especially in 1913.
Uhle after the National History Museum

After he left the Museo de Historia Nacional in Peru, Uhle was contracted
by the government of Chile and invited to the University of Chile, where
he stayed from 1911 to 1919 (Orellana 1996:95). There he founded the Museo
de Etnologa y Antropologa of Chile as a section of the Museo Histrico
de Chile, which had been established in 1911.14 He focused his fieldwork on
the north and central part of the country during most of his stay in Chile
(Orellana 1996:92). During this time (19161919), all of his scientific activities
42
were centered in the cities of Tacna and Arica (Orellana 1996:95).15 He had
a strong influence on the academic world of Santiago, so much so that one
of the most important Chilean archaeologists of the time, Martin Gusinde,
declared himself a disciple of this master (Orellana 1996:90). Later, after
finishing his contract in Chile, he moved to Ecuador at the invitation of the
distinguished Jacinto Jijn y Caamao, an Ecuadorian researcher who knew
Uhles work well and would later excavate in Peru at the Maranga complex
in 1925 (Jijn y Caamao 1949).16 In Ecuador, Uhle conducted excavations,
lectured at the university, and directed the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa.
In September 1933, Uhle went back to Germany to enjoy a pension offered
him by the German government (Rowe 1954:1718) and to work at the IberoAmerican Institute in Berlin. He dedicated these years to writing articles,
processing data, and putting his notes of 40 years together (Linares Mlaga
1964:34; Rowe 1954:18). Through the initiative of Dr. Luis E. Valcrcel, the
Faculty of Letters of San Marcos University, the Peruvian government organized a jubilee in his honor in 1935, including both Peruvian and foreign intellectuals. In his speech, Valcrcel was quoted as saying, This tribute also
means that the consciousness of Peru has not forgotten, nor will ever forget,
all those who embrace the thankless task of the misunderstood researcher,
constantly maligned but whose merit is still recognized in spite of all (Bueno
2003:19). The Peruvian government also accorded him the highest civilian
honor for a foreigner, the Order of the Sun (Orden del Sol).
In 1939, Uhle returned to Peru as an invitee to the xxvii International
Congress of Americanists (Rowe 1954:18). Uhle participated in two sessions,
in which he gave two papers: Procedencia y Origen de las Antiguas Civilizaciones Americanas (The Location and Origin of Ancient American Civilizations) and La Marcha de las Civilizaciones (The March of Civilizations)
(Bueno 2003:20). Unfortunately, World War II broke out the same year that
Uhle returned to Peru. Although Peru declared itself a neutral country, in
1941 it formalized its support with the Allies (Contreras and Cueto 2007:269).
Later, Japanese and German citizens were considered suspicious. According
to Linares Mlaga (1964:34), Jorge C. Muelle remembered that Uhle was detained with other compatriots in the Hotel Los ngeles in Chosica, near
Lima. Uhle finally returned to Germany in 1942 (Rowe 1954:19). Linares Mlaga
concludes, And so it was the second world war that darkened his life and
little was heard from him until mid-May of 1944, when the cable arrived announcing the death of the great man at the advanced age of 88 years
(1964:35).
43
Discussion
We have seen in this chapter that the beginnings of archaeology can be
traced back in time to the early part of the second half of the nineteenth century. Although Max Uhle was the investigator who made the most significant
progress by excavating and publishing with the academic standards of the
time, it is undeniable that there was an existing archaeological tradition in
Peru, similar to that of other countries. It is remarkable how creole elites and
immigrants reproduced this tradition using a purely Western framework, but
it is really remarkable that, save for Rivero y Ustariz, no other person born in
Peru was part of the founding of archaeology in his or her own country. As
we will see in the following chapters, archaeological innovation almost always had foreign sources. But we will also see that nationalist politics would
alter this relationship in key moments of the twentieth century.
Beyond that, Uhles work was significant in establishing broad chronologies in the central and southern Andes, linking large areas in meaningful
time units. His work as organizer and builder of the archaeological section
of the Museo de Historia Nacional del Per was very relevant because, after
the war with Chile, Peru was left with no institution that could conserve and
exhibit its prehispanic legacy. Uhles concern for the destruction of Perus
cultural heritage was also very important in a societyabove all the social
elitethat continued to destroy sites to fuel their collecting obsessions. Finally, one can appreciate how Uhle was caught up in the polemics of national
identity because he was an official of the Peruvian state as head of the Museum. His exit from the country was a loss of archaeological expertise, even
though it did result in the creation of archaeological institutions in other
South American countries such as Chile and Ecuador.
Thus, while his scientific contributions were significant and foundational, from a postwar (with Chile 18791884) nationalist perspective (Aljovn and Cavieres 2005:14; Klarn 2004:304), it was necessary to construct a
nation ideally with people born on its own soil. So, we can understand, given
the intense feelings of the time, that the father of Peruvian archaeology
would have to be someone who embodied both physically and ideologically
the concept of Peruvian-ness. Needless to say, it was necessary to find a
person that could reanimate the concept of the ancient Peruvian in the
vacuum left by Uhle. Moreover, this person should be found among the available intellectuals in the Peruvian social scene. The distinguished figure of
Julio C. Tello would play an important role in this national objective.
Chapter 3
Archaeology and Nationalism in the 1920s:

Julio C. Tello and Peruvian Culture
Peru in 19101920: Aristocratic Republic and the Oncenio
orge basadre refers to the Aristocratic Republic as the political

context of the first decades of the twentieth century. At this time Peru
was governed by the Partido Civil, foundedas we saw in the previous
chapterby Manuel Pardo prior to the War of the Pacific. In fact, the son
of Manuel Pardo y Lavalle, Jos Pardo y Barreda, was also part of this political group and held the office of president for two terms (19041908 and
19151919). The party at first was linked strongly with Limas aristocracy.
However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, it began to include certain members of Limas emergent middle class as well as intellectuals and
professionals, especially those from San Marcos University, one of the leading centers of Perus intellectual elite at this time. It is in these early decades
of the twentieth century that the so-called generacin del novecientos
(twentieth-century generation) was established as the intellectual elite, coinciding with the centenary celebrations of Peruvian independence in 1921.
Except for the brief period of the proto-populist government of Guillermo
Billinghurst (19121914), English and most of all US economic interests dominated the political and economic climate in Peru until 1919 (Contreras and
Cueto 2007:207; Thorp and Bertram [1978] 1988:105).1
The Reconstruccin Nacional, begun by Andrs Avelino Cceres to
develop the national economy, continued during this time, resulting in
population growth, especially in the coastal cities. This growth in population
around the haciendas on the north coast, for example (Klarn 1976), as well
as the masses of workers in the cities, constituted a social base that would
consolidate into social movements during Leguas government. These new
rights reserved.
44
Archaeology and Nationalism in the 1920s
45
Figure 10. Julio C. Tello.
movements were represented by parties

such as apra (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana) and the Socialist Party
(later Communist), with individuals such
as Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre and Jos
Carlos Maritegui emerging as political
and intellectual leaders. The system of
haciendas in the sierra, called the Andean
Hacienda by Manuel Burga and Alberto
Flores Galindo (1984:19), also continued
during this period, maintaining a feudal
structure established in the colonial era.
Due in part to this exploitation of the
campesino (rural worker/farmer) class,
political movements began to develop in this time, reaching their apogee
during Leguas dictatorship (Kapsoli [1984] 2010).
Above all, the debates in Lima over the construction of the Peruvian
nation would move from eugenics, which was of course linked to social Darwinism, to the education of indigenous peoples and spontaneous nationalism in the southern highlands of Peru, parallel to urban indigenous movements (Kristal 1991). This led the Legua government to adopt an official,
albeit paternalistic, pro-indigenous policy as an official ideology of the state.
It reached an absurd level when Legua personified himself as Viracocha, the
creator god of pre-Inca and Inca mythology.
This is the time of the construction of the imagined community of Peru
(as defined by Anderson [1991] 1997), which was embodied in the ancient
past and a national culture constructed by a political elite. Essential to this
construction was the national archaeology, orchestrated by Julio C. Tello
(Figure 10) within a hegemonic archaeological paradigm that is nothing
more than cultural history that momentarily overshadowed, in the interwar
period, social evolutionism.
Cultural Historical Archaeology

The cultural history paradigm is a type of social theory that originated in Europe, specifically Germany, where it was very popular in the interwar years.
This perspective was also called historical particularism in the United
States. The causal mechanism of social change in this framework is diffusion
46
(Trigger 2006:211). Obviously, this social theory had already been adopted in
other European countries, with a strong presence in the United States through
Boasian anthropology and scholars such as Alfred Kroeber. In this sense, the
cultural history paradigm promoted hegemonic archaeological trends at the
beginning of the twentieth century. The expansion of this paradigm to other
countries was linked to the economic, political, and ideological dependencies
that existed in the world at that time. This hegemonic relationship resulted in
the imposition of foreign notions of the past in these dependent nations;
good archaeological explanations for European prehistory, for example, are
converted into a framework for the construction of national identities in
other dependent countries (Kohl and Fawcett 1995).
Tello began his academic career using this explanatory framework. He
held a widely accepted concept that a suite of similar artifacts represented a
coherent culture. This concept is linked to the cultural history framework,
used in a period when cultures were defined methodologically and sociologically. The construction of cultures was a response to what was happening Europe at the time: nation-states were being formed in the aftermath of World
War I as the old monarchies were falling apart, and Europe was being reconstituted along different lines, the process of which reached its final point with
the end of World War II (Hobsbawm 1991). This was the period when European
elites began to generate their own national identities, and found a means to
scientifically reinforce their political and economic interests.
Thus, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the tendency was to
identify nuclear centers from which innovations spread across the territory.
This theory of cultural change was diffusionism, a framework that Tello
used implicitly in his work. In the same vein, Tello refers to Chavn as a
mother culture, which Gordon Willey ([1951] 1970) had noted in an article
published in 1951. If societies were subject to universal evolution, then deviations from such an evolution were due to influences from a pristine area.
This was the new paradigm that arose in the early twentieth century.
Methodologically, it was a big change. Previously, archaeological objects
that appeared in an area were explained as the result of an internal process
of social evolution. So, for example, if we had an archaeological context with
a monochrome design, and in the next stratum we had a tricolor ceramic,
how can we explain this? The favored diffusionist explanation at that time
was that a different cultural group had invaded the area. This was the essence of Uhles theory and how, for example, he explained the Tiwanaku style
horizon. When he worked in Pachacamac in 1896, he already had in mind the
horizon concept coupled with an early type of diffusionist theory. For Uhle,
the principal figure on the Gate of the Sun at Tiwanaku, the Staff God, also
47
appeared at Pachacamac, so it was logical to see the Tiwanaku culture as

expanding to the central coast.
Oscar Montelius concept of Ex Oriente Lux, which proposed that most
early technological innovations came from the Near East, was an extreme
application of this kind of logic. V. Gordon Childe, inspired by the ideas of
Montelius and others in his early work, also used the concept of horizon style
(Lpez Jimnez 2001:85). Childe also followed the trend of the times and explained that, for example, the great neolithic and urban revolutions had been
generated first in Mesopotamia and from there had spread all the way to
central and western Europe. In the mid-1920s, Childe published a book titled
The Aryans (Childe 1926), a text that has little to do with his later writings,
which were inspired by Marxist theory in the Soviet Union. In The Aryans,
Childe also reflected the racism prevalent at the time, exemplified by Gustav
Kossina in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century (Arnold 1990).
During the interwar period in Europe, anthropologists considered every
culture unique: this was known as historical particularism. What had been
considered progress in a social evolutionist construct was now viewed as a
fragmentation process of cultural development in cultural historical approaches. Furthermore, within each nation we see a chronological progression that continually divides, each time with more cultures, resembling a
phylogenetic tree.
That is why Tello was able to create a culture such as Chavn, with its own
unique characteristics and, especially, with a vision of culture as a people
that originate and then spread from a pristine place. In addition, this period
coincides with what Grahame Clark ([1947] 1980:237) called the nationalism
of archaeological activities. In Peru, the ideology of indigenismo helped Tello
to explain cultural change in a more particularistic and local manner. This
contrasts with Uhles proposal that civilization came from the outside. In
practical terms, Uhle presupposed that Peru was only the recipient of the
achievements of civilizations, in this case Mesoamerica. What turns out to
be interesting here is how the movements or flows of prehispanic societies
shifted with the changing theoretical frameworks of archaeologists.
An important thing to remember is that in this era of the first two decades of the twentieth century, apart from Tello, the national archaeological
scene was practically deserted. Certainly we have on one side the erudite
Rafael Larco Hoyle, Pedro Villar Crdova,2 and Luis Valcrcel, although their
work was predominantly local (though Larco and Valcrcel would emerge
as national intellectuals). As such, because of his overriding prominence in
the national scene and his support by the state and other public institutions,
Tello overshadowed these other archaeologists to a great extent.
48
One suspects that there must have been other investigators who conducted their own work, but who either did not view archaeology as their
primary discipline or simply did not attain academic visibility. As a result,
archaeology was not professionalized in Peru at that time. As we will see,
the professionalization of archaeology began in the 1950s.3 Before this time,
there were self-taught people that excavated and studied objects for personal
reasons, but there was no professional school of archaeology.
Julio C. Tello and the Concept of the Andean Mother Culture

Julio C. Tello is recognized in Peruvian textbooks as the father of Peruvian
archaeology, a view rooted in the collective imagination of Peruvian society.
In the present academic environment, this debate about the paternity of
Peruvian archaeology has led some researchers to compare Tello with Uhle,
contrasting the duration of their work and the precision of their research
( for example, see Kaulicke 1998a). Other analyses delve into the historical
contexts in which these intellectuals developed their practice ( for example,
see Hampe Martnez 1998; Mesa 2006). Almost from the beginning of his
career as an archaeological researcher, Tello was associated with a country
that provided the public resources to subsidize, exhibit, and disseminate his
work. In fact, Tellos founding of the Museo de Arqueologa of San Marcos
Figure 11. Museum of Archaeology, Lima, 1920s.
49
University (1919), the Museo de Arqueologa Peruana (1924) (Figure 12),4 and
the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Antropologa (1938) provided opportunities for him to promote his theories on numerous archaeological topics
(see also Rowe 1954:24).
Here, I illustrate how Tellos government-sanctioned positions facilitated
his creation of an ideology that we can call nationalistic indigenismo (Angelo 2005:188; Mesa 2006). We can therefore see Tellos position as an active
element of the Peruvian state apparatus becoming an example to follow ( for
example, see Astuhuamn 2004).
Tello was born in 1880 in Suni, a town near Huarochir nestled in the
sierras of Lima (Meja Xesspe 1967:vi). In principle, his humble, indigenous
origins should have oriented him towards the indigenista movement. Nevertheless, Tello did not totally lack the means for a basic education and,
thanks to his fathers local government position, he was able to obtain certain privileges over his companions in primary school (Astuhuamn 2004;
Astuhuamn and Dagget 2005). Under this circumstance, he arrived in Lima
at 13 years old to pursue secondary school studies (Lumbreras 2006).5 These
were difficult economic times, but he had help from mentors with sufficient
means or with some academic influence (Palma [1917] 1956:8). For example,
during Tellos university years in Lima, Ricardo Palma helped with funds
until he received a post in the National Library, where Palma was director.
Figure 12. National Museum of Archaeology, 2013. Photo by Henry Tantalen.
50
Sebastin Barranca, his professor at San Marcos University, also helped him
out financially (Astuhuamn and Dagget 2005; Daggett 2009:8,10). We thus
see that Tello made good use of the opportunities afforded to him in the
academic culture of Perus capital.
Tellos training at San Marcos University when he began in 1900 was in
medicine, but he soon became interested in anthropology. He was drawn
to physical and cultural anthropology as a result of his access to academic
publications at the National Library, the cranial collections recovered in his
native region of Huarochir, and from other collections made by his mentors.
He finished his work in 1908 with a bachelors thesis titled The Antiquity of
Syphilis in Peru, in which one can detect an early search for the primordial
Peruvian civilization within the dominant diffusionist paradigm of the day.
This thesis opened doors for Tello in the academic world and raised his
profile among the intellectual elite of Lima, particularly at San Marcos University. As Csar Astuhuamn and Richard Daggett note:
On the 21st of August, by prior petition of the Medical faculty, an executive order by the Legua government provided a scholarship for Tello to
study at Harvard University. While he studied in the us, Tellos interest
continued to turn toward the study of human remains, language and
museums. He traveled around the country, attended academic conferences, visited museums, especially those that had osteological collections from Peru. At the end of June 1911, Tello received a Master of Arts in
Anthropology (Astuhuaman and Dagget 2005:22).
In the United States, he also attended the classes of prestigious professors at the main universities that taught North American archaeology ( for
example, Harvard). Most of these centers had adopted the diffusionist thesis
of the Boasian variety. Csar Astuhuamn (personal communication, 2007)
notes that among Tellos professors were William Farabee, a specialist in the
Peruvian Amazon and metals; Alfred Tozzer, a specialist in Mesoamerican
archaeology; and Roland Dixon. Lumbreras (2006:213) tells us that Tello
counted on the help of Franz Boas, Frederic W. Putnam, and Alex Hrdlicka in
the United States and Felix von Luschan in Berlin. Given this, it is not strange
that he followed the theories of his professors and colleagues, arguing later
that the first Andean peoples immigrated from the selva.
In 1911, thanks to another scholarship from the Peruvian government,
Tello took a long trip through Western Europe. It was in Berlin in 1912 that
he became convinced of the diffusionist thesis. In this trip abroad, we find
the source of inspiration for the ideas that Tello brought back to Peru in
1913. It was from these academic circles that he reproduced the hegemonic
51
discourse and from which he materialized his own views about Andean
civilization.
Returning to Peru in 1913, he petitioned the government of Guillermo
Billinghurst (19121914) and received a position as director of the Archaeological Section of the old Museo de Historia Nacional. Again, just as he did to
Uhle, the director of the museum, Emilio Gutirrez de Quintanilla, accused
Tello of mismanagement, theft, and trafficking of archaeological materials.
These diatribes surfaced in a pamphlet titled The Manco Capac of Peruvian
Archaeology, Julio C. Tello (Seor de Huarochir). As one can imagine, given
these racist and unsubstantiated personal attacks, Tello abandoned his position in 1915.
Two years later, in 1917, Tello entered national politics and was elected
as a parliamentary deputy from Huarochir. From this privileged position
in the Peruvian government he generated a series of projects related to the
protection of cultural patrimony and the establishment of institutions that
helped his professional career. In addition, he used this position to confront
his enemies, namely Gutirrez de Quintanilla (Tello 1967a:110).
Later, Tello joined San Marcos University. From here, he directed his
principal expeditions in the country, such as that at Chavn de Huntar in
1919 (Tello 1943). It was here of course that he obtained the archaeological
materials to define the mother culture and propose the diffusion of this
culture to the rest of the central Andes (Tello 1960).
As mentioned here, his position on this was diametrically opposed to
that of Uhle (Ramn 2005:10), who paradoxically also explained the origin of
societies via a mechanism of diffusion6 (Kaulicke 1998a:74; Politis 1995:203;
Rowe 1954:21). Nevertheless, Tellos thesis had an autochthonous substance
that sustained a nationalist ideology, in contrast to Uhles allochthonous
thesis.7 Likewise, Tellos epistemology started with a hypothesis then tested
in the field (hypothetical deduction, as we would say today), whereas Uhle
started with the object of study within a positivist-empiricist framework
(Lumbreras [1983] 2005:296). Because of this, one gets the sense that Tello already knew what he would find in his expeditions before he conducted them.
For the Peruvian archaeologist Rosa Fung (1963), Tello (1929, [1939] 1942)
had an implicit social evolutionary bias in his work (e.g., his chronological
schema of the Archaic, Classic, and Decadent periods). However, his ideas
provided a way to explain long-term changes in the Andean world. Tellos
diffusionism, in addition to expressing a succession of different cultures,
also accounted for internally driven change. Social changes were expressed
in blocks of time that paralleled the growth of a culture. When a culture
decayed and disappeared from the pressures of new a group of people
52
migrating in, it also represented the beginning of a new phase in a uniquely

Andean evolutionary scheme.
As noted earlier in this chapter, Tellos academic career paralleled his political activities. Between 1917 and 1929 he carried out his duties as a member
of Congress for Huarochir (Astuhuamn and Dagget 2005; Lumbreras
2006:215; Moreno 2007), his native province, in the Partido Nacional Democrtico, found by Jos de la Riva Aguero. Tello politically allied himself with
the second government of the aristocratic, procapitalist, and proNorth
American Augusto B. Legua (Klarn 2004:299) from 1919 to 1930. This allowed
him to continue his research with the political support of the state and
within a national discourse on indigenous nationalism (Kaulicke 2006:12).8
Thus, his implicit ideological goal was the promotion of a strong national
identity through the recognition of the unity of the ethnic-geographical, cultural, linguistic, religious [Andean pantheism] and historical (Tello 1967b:
2078; see also Kaulicke 1998a:72).
In the same way, Tello could say as early as 1921, in relation to supposed
prehispanic nationalist politics, that:
The Incas laid the foundation of a new nationality. [They] . . . left the existing secular institutions, the arts, the industries and all of the achievements of civilization to continue without interruption, in their march to
greatness; thus, they sought through the cooperation of such diverse
groups to form a superior organization equipped with a central power to
control and unify. Here is the wise policy of the Incas (Tello 1921:46).
We see, therefore, that his rhetoric did not deviate from that of other
archaeologists from other countries who championed the nationalist dogma
(Kohl and Fawcett 1995). They used the material remains of ancient societies
to create metanarratives, exaggerating and idealizing them to the point that
they often fell into a kind of crude chauvinism. This indigenous nationalism would be used to justify the political and economic policies of the state
and its intellectuals. Tello in fact was a product of this class, and he later
became an intellectual that supported this class.9 In this sense, the diffusionist theories and cultural historical narratives served to cloak the nationalist
discourse with an unwarranted scientific certainty.10
Tello after Legua

Tello enjoyed the support of Leguas government (Mesa 2006). But as a
result of Leguas overthrow on August 25, 1930, by Commander Luis M.
Snchez Cerro, Tello was at the mercy of his many enemies; as a result, his
53
archaeological projects were slowed or even stopped by the very same state
that he once supported. For example, his expedition to the Nepea Valley
in the north coast to investigate the important sites of Cerro Blanco and
Punkuri generated controversy. As usual, people raised suspicions about the
supervision of this project and about the management of the funds. These
rumors reached the ears of the other members of the Patronato de Arqueologa (which Tello founded in 1929) such as Luis E. Valcrcel and Santiago
Antnez de Mayolo (Tello [1933] 2005:165 and passim).
Valcrcel and Antnez de Mayolo investigated Tellos excavations. A recently published book on San Marcos Universitys Museo de Arqueologa,
based upon a collection of Tellos manuscripts (Cuadernos del Archivo Tello
2005), is interesting here because it focuses on Tellos Nepea Valley excavations in 1933, where he discovered Cerro Blanco, an important Formative
site. The letters in this archive are between Tello and the Patronato de Arqueologa. After reading these letters, one can appreciate his dependency on
others for financial support. This created a difficult situation for Tello,
marked by financial uncertainty and the burden of having other scholars
such as Valcrcel and Antnez de Mayolo monitor his work. It wasnt until
1937 that Tello was able to resume serious work.
Figure 13. Julio C. Tello and Alfred Kroeber, Lima, November 1, 1926. Courtesy of Smithsonian
Institution.
54
The creation of the Institute of Andean Research in the United States

in 1936 came at an opportune time for Tello. Thanks to the grants that he
received from the Rockefeller Foundation, he was able to once again conduct
important archaeological research (Patterson 2002:78). His relationship
with Alfred Kroeber,11 a disciple of Franz Boas, clearly demonstrates Tellos
institutional links as well as his overall theoretical views (Figure 13). Kroeber
had been very interested in the ceramic styles of North America, Mexico, and
especially Peru, thanks to the materials deposited by Uhle in the Anthropology Museum at Berkeley (Kroeber 1925a, 1925b, 1926a; Gayton and Kroeber
1927) as well as his own work on the Peruvian coast (1926b, 1930, 1937a). This
was one motivation for his close relationship with Tello (Kroeber 1937b:127).
Tello was clearly part of the same diffusionist school of anthropology, moving in the circles begun by Boas.
Discussion
Tellos archaeological research sought to vindicate and celebrate the past of
the Andean peoples. Contrary to the radical diffusionists who saw Andean
civilization emerging elsewhere, he argued that Chavn was the origin of
these great prehispanic societies. His proposals were based upon on theoFigure 14. Tellos bronze sculpture with the Acllawasi (Inca building) at Pachacamac, Lima,
in the background. Photo by Henry Tantalen.
55
ries developed in the early part of the twentieth century. Diffusionism gave
him the mechanism and the methodology by which he discovered the proof
of the antiquity of Chavn as well as its cultural development, manifest in
its architecture and artifacts that extended over a great part of the Andes.
Throughout his life he was supported by a series of local intellectuals, but
primarily he counted on the help of the government. The Legua administration found in Tellos thesis a clear link between the present and the past,
which was a key element in creating a new national identity. Tello wanted
to build the national identity not only on the basis of academic discourse,
but also through the construction of institutions such as museums. His style
clearly dominated the intellectual scene in the country up to the end of the
1930s. But his importance began to fade as early as the 1920s, when Legua
was removed from office and Valcrcel took over the major cultural institutions in Peru.
Tello recovered somewhat after this because of his prestige and with the
financial help of the institutions that he helped found. This permitted him
to continue in the field, for instance, at Pachacamac (Figure 14). In his last
decade, during World War ii, he witnessed the arrival of the American archaeologists on the Vir Project, Rafael Larco Hoyles consolidation of power
and prestige in the north coast, and that of Jorge C. Muelle on the national
stage. Tellos principal disciples, Rebecca Carrin Cachot and Toribio Meja
Xesspe, had some influence from their positions in the Museo Nacional de
Arqueologa. In truth, up to at least the 1960s, there was no archaeologist
that could promote a national archaeology like Tello within the Peruvian
state.
Chapter 4
Indigenismo in the Ancient Capital of the Incas:

The Cusqueo Period of Luis Valcrcel
Introduction
s the venezuelan archaeologist Mario Sanoja (2007:72) rightly

notes, Peru was the center of the most developed of all the South
American civilizations, and one of the most advanced civilizations
in the ancient world. However, such a past contrasted with the reality of the
Andean indigenous people, despite the continuance of many of the political
structures of the Inca Empire during the early colonial period. This was a
glorious past for a frustrated nation, one hampered by a Spanish colonialist past and an endo-colonialist creole mentality, a territory fragmented by
impassable cultural borders and beset by abysmal social conditions, according to the Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre.
In spite of this contradiction, the imagery of Tawantinsuyu tenaciously
survived not only among the indigenous class, but also among intellectuals
who created a political discourse inspired by the glorious past of the native
population that, at the beginning of the twentieth century, represented
two-thirds of the population (Espinoza 1995). This movement was known as
indigenismo.
The indigenismo movement was born as a formal reaction to the entrenched power of the traditional Limea elite, who comprised the land-owner
class and their clients (Espinoza 1995). This indigenista project consisted in
revaluing and recognizing the rights of the indigenous people, placing them
on the same level as other ethnic groups in Lima and the provincial capitals
such as Cusco, Puno, and Arequipa. Among these intellectuals, Luis Valcrcel
(18911987) stands out. His lifes work consisted of the study of Perus ancient
rights reserved.
56
Indigenismo in the Ancient Capital of the Incas
57
history to validate the twentieth-century indigenous class, the descendants

of the great prehispanic civilizations.
In this context, Valcrcel has been studied from different perspectives
that mostly focused on his ethnohistoric and anthropological work. Coincident with his early years as a social anthropologist in Cusco, Valcrcel conducted a series of archaeological research projects in the Puno area on what
he called the Pukara culture. He described and interpreted objects and sites
associated with this rich prehispanic culture. At the same time, Valcrcel directed the Museo de Arqueologa de la Universidad Nacional San Antonio
Abad in Cusco (today the Museo Inka), where he was able to study the Pukara
collections. As a result of this work, Valcrcel emerged as one of the first
builders of museums and other institutions related to protecting and explaining the Andean past.
In this chapter, I try to locate the work of the young Valcrcel in his cultural and social contexts as he worked in the Puno and Cusco regions up
until 1930. In that year he moved to Lima, initiating a new stage in his career.
The Young Valcrcel and Regional Indigenismo

In the 1920s, when conservative groups dominated Limas entire intellectual
environment, indigenismo was restricted to provincial intellectual circles
and a few Limeos, such as those that were in the Asociacin Pro-Indgena1
(even though most of those circles had little actual knowledge of the indigenous reality). Valcrcel (1981) says:
The central point of our program was to recapture regionalism in the
art of Peru as an exceptional intellectual norm, from which the national
literature would be more cohesive and acquire its own distinctive flavor.
This radical regionalist position was a reaction to the snobbiness so
prevalent in the Lima intellectual circles, many of which came to feel
that in Peru we were growing tired of local themes. They committed
the critical error to forget that artistic beauty is above all a subjective
judgment and does not have an object reality in the things themselves.
As evident in the literary and artistic production of the period, there
was a complete difference in motives between our Cusco group and our
contemporary Limeos. We supported a pronounced regionalism and
sought to celebrate indigenous life. Years later, the first painters and
indigenous writers would cause some anguish and controversy in the
closed intellectual environment in Lima. These indigenous intellectuals
58
demonstrated in their work a landscape, a people and a culture whose

existence had been systematically denied by the sophisticated people
in the capital. Our disadvantage lay in the fact that the latest innovative
publications took too long to arrive to our provincial locations (Valcrcel
1981:185).
A scholarly tradition therefore coalesced at the Universidad San Antonio
Abad del Cusco in the debates on the recognition of the indigenous classes
and the condemnation of the abuses of the Indian. This reform occurred
in 1909 as a consequence of the first university strike in South America, in
which Valcrcel participated. Clearly, the university reform of 1909 aligned
the university with the majority in Cusquea society. Before the strike, this
educational institution was corrupt, mediocre, and conservative. When it reopened, the university became a source of progressive ideas, many of which
were previously inspired by the indigenous theories of Manuel Gonzlez
Prada in Lima and Clorinda Matto de Turner in Cusco.
Francisco Garca Caldern refers to this period of time as the Cusco
School, which was characterized by a clear indigenismo perspective. The
main protagonist was Valcrcel himself, who initiated the movement in 1910
(Valcrcel 1981:141). This is also the time when he integrated his primary
work at Puno in altiplano archaeology with indigenismo concerns.
Tamayo Herrera calls this period the golden age of the university because of the reforms generated by the strike of 1909 and the reopening of the
university under the leadership of the North American Alberto Giesecke
(who was chancellor until 1923). Giesecke focused the university community
on local issues based upon a pragmatism that also facilitated the study of
Cuscos ancient past.2 In fact, this chancellor was very interested in the City
of the Incas and its prehispanic remains.3 He organized the universitys
Museo Arqueolgico to acquire the private collection of Dr. Jos Lucas Capar
Muiz, which consisted of pieces Tello was planning to move to Lima. Valcrcel directed the museum from 1917 to 1930, and his research efforts were
based out of this institution. From here, he directed the conservation work
on Cuscos many monuments.
Valcrcel also wrote:
The work of protecting the archaeological monuments in Cusco was
difficult, due to the fact there were many of them and there was a lack of
resources. By then the importance of this [conservation] task was
beginning to be understood. Thanks to the concern of some congressmen
like Vctor J. Guevara, we were able to obtain some small funds that
permitted us to fix up Sacsahuaman, Pucar, Tambomachay, Ollan-
59
taytambo and Machu Picchu. . . . We also were able to place watchmen

in the major monuments as a way of preventing looting. In 1925, we
proposed an inventory and conservation plan for sites near the city, as
well as the construction of some access routes to these monuments.
However, it was not possible to implement this, the cause being more of
the same: a lack of resources, but also of interest and conviction. In spite
of our efforts, that unstoppable destructive forcetimecomplicit
with the hand of man would continue to damage [the sites], without
sufficient resources to control it (Valcrcel 1981:215).
Valcrcel was very active in the decades between 1910 and 1930 (Figure 15).
He was both a politician and an academic focused on revaluing the Andean
past. Another example was his work on Andean oral traditions evident in the
early Spanish literature, like the Ollanta drama. Valcrcel staged this drama
in cities such as Buenos Aires (Figure 16).
In 1924, Valcrcel and other colleagues pushed for the creation of public
universities, following the ideas of Manuel Gonzles Prada. Existing media
outlets such as La Sierra publicized these efforts and served to counter the
status quo of the early universitys leadership. After the 1909 strike, these media were the means by which the new ideas were promoted. Likewise, Revista
Universitaria was an important organ for
the publication of historical, anthropological, and archaeological research after
the reopening of the university in 1910.
Revista counted on the collaboration of
intellectuals, including Valcrcel, who
were affiliated with the new university.
His close relationship with Jos Carlos Maritegui beginning in 1924 influenced his work on indigenous themes; it
is at this time we see a greater reliance
on Marxist ideas. This was because both
intellectuals denounced the abuse of the
Andean native and sought a revalidation
and liberation of their culture. Valcrcels Tempestad en los Andes (1927) is,
Figure 15. Luis E. Valcrcel at Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 1923. Courtesy of the Luis E.
Valcrcel Archive.
60
Figure 16. Performance of Misin de Arte Incaico en el Extranjero (Incaic Art Mission in
Foreign Parts) headed by Luis E. Valcrcel at 1923. Courtesy of the Luis E. Valcrcel Archive.
perhaps, the one text that depended most heavily on Marxist thought;
Mariteguis influence is clear in this work. He encouraged Valcrcel to write
the book to reflect the life of the indigenous people of Cusco. This work demonstrates very clearly the strong relationship between the political and academic activities of the young Valcrcel, who was aware that the scientific
study of prehispanic societies was being conducted in a revolutionary time
with both the promise of a new indigenous status as well as the hope of a
new kind of social order for the entire nation.
Politics, Ethnology, and Archaeology

Luis Valcrcel possessed a general anthropological vision in which ancient
and contemporary Andean societies, in spite of the time difference and the
different political economies, maintained strong links with each other.
Maritegui expounded on this interpretation in his book 7 Ensayos de Interpretacin de la Realidad Peruana (Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality)
([1928] 1997:283). Valcrcel also observed this in his Cusqueo period, based
on documents he had read to get a deeper understanding of Andean culture,
such as a sixteenth-century manuscript by the curate Francisco de vila that
Jos Mara Arguedas ([1966] 2007) and Gerald Taylor later translated.
61
From that perspective, Valcrcel compared the material record of the

cultures that inhabited the highlands of Lake Titicaca with the documentary
record to identify the ethnic groups in the region, an identity that he understood as living but marginalized. He proposed a type of analysis that,
although part anthropological and part archaeological, possessed its own
distinct character. His anthropological vision of material culture and history
of the Andean ethnic groups constitutes the first set of formal methods that
today we understand as ethnohistory. Valcrcel thus established an Andean
ethnology consistent with contemporary social sciences and added to it a
strong sense of interdisciplinary methods and goals.
We can characterize the origins of archaeological and ethnological
thought in Peru as a debate on the origin of high culture in the Andes and the
confrontation of two major theories about this origin. Valcrcel and Tello,
both Peruvians, were gravitating toward the construction of an archaeology
made by Peruvians. This was in a context where important steps had already
been taken by European and American travellers or by early scientists such
as Max Uhle. Valcrcel and Tello strongly believed in the construction of an
archaeology by and for Peruvians, even within a context in which foreigners
had made important contributions.
Despite the academic environment in which these debates occurred, it
is clear that politics was always a background in these discussions. Political
interests colored not only ideas about the origin of the high Andean civilizations, but also focused on the legitimate historical claims of the Andean
native peoples. The work done by anthropologists and archaeologists such
as Valcrcel and Tello was in essence politics integrated with the academy as
well as a defense of indigenous culture.
This ideological discourse of the revitalized indigenous past was critical
in archaeological discoveries. Some of these discoveries were considerably
older than the Incas and allowed one to speak of a series of historically related cultures that forged the Andean people up to the present day. In spite
of archaeologys methodological advances in the past century, the finds (and
the implications of these finds) were limited compared with later discoveries. Yet these investigators developed many hypotheses and inferences about
the antiquity of Andean culture. The autochthonous origin of Andean civilization, of course, could be demonstrated with scientific data. This reinforced
political positions that saw the civilization destroyed by the Spaniards as
better in the past, and that the indigenous peoples today in the country
were numerous, but also poor and marginalized.
The results of Valcrcels politicalized writings and academic actions
in his first years in Cusco was to link social scientific construction with a
62
program of indigenous revitalization and to create an arena for the defense

of the Andean concept of the past. For this reason, one of his primary themes
was the study of the nature of the Inca Empire.
Valcrcel, since his student days in Cusco, had political contacts that
yielded various opportunities. He supported various politicians, including Jos
Pardo y Barreda and Guillermo Billinghurst. This latter connection brought
him an important position as the Departmental Inspector of Education.
Later, he was chosen as a congressman from Chumbivilcas in 1919 on Pardos
parliamentary list, but the coup dtat by Augusto B. Legua prevented him
from assuming this position in the Peruvian Congress in Lima. Thereafter,
Valcrcel criticized Legua in the press. In contrast to Valcrcels situation,
Julio C. Tello was the preeminent scholar of the prehispanic Andes during
Leguas dictatorship. It was during Leguas second administration that Valcrcel published his celebrated book Tempestad en los Andes (1927). This was
an indigenista polemic published in the middle of the second great university
strike, when he was imprisoned with other political prisoners at the Isla San
Lorenzo jail in front of the port of Callao. Rodrigo Montoya (1998) aptly
notes: Tempestad en los Andes was a semi-literate and semi-political pamphlet by Luis E. Valcrcel, the young indigenist radical of 20 years, burning
and intense, that announced the arrival of the Indian revolution that would
descend from the Andes and which only awaited the arrival of Lenin to direct
it (Montoya 1998:244).
Although the indigenismo of the young Valcrcel was intimately linked
with liberation political movements such as anarchism and later Marxism,
the political ideas that came to radicalize him were not political orthodoxies
but rather the attempts to revitalize the indigenous that would come from
his direct contact living with the Andean cultures of Cusco.
Valcrcel and Altiplano Archaeology

For Valcrcel, the scientific discovery of Machu Picchu by the North American Hiram Bingham4 was one of the most important archaeological discoveries at the beginning of the twentieth century. Valcrcel was one of the first
scholars in Cusco, then a professor at the Universidad Nacional del Cusco,
to call attention to the archaeological record in the region.5 One of his first
publications that we can call archaeological was to catalog the petroglyphs
of La Convencin. He also discovered the famed 40 turquoise figures at the
Wari city of Pikillacta (Valcrcel 1981:216). Later, in 1925, Valcrcel directed
his first archaeological expedition in Pukara in the altiplano of Puno (Valcrcel 1925b, 1932a:7). As such, he was the scientific discoverer of this culture,
63
as he affirmed in his own words: No ancient or modern archaeologist has

examined the monuments that are found in this town (Valcrcel 1925b:14).
From his early childhood to his final move to Lima, Valcrcel had had
contact with many people from different social classes in the altiplano of
Puno. Among them, one that was key for his introduction to the archaeology
of the region was Jos Frisancho, an eminent lawyer and judge of the Supreme Court of Cusco who had assumed the legal defense of the indigenous
peoples in a time when many of the hacendados had used their wealth and
social power to prevail in the court systems.
Valcrcel described Frisancho and related his arrival in Puno in the following way:
Frisancho was from Puno and had indigenous characteristics, spoke
Aymara and Quechua and was a strict but sociable character. Close to 40
years old, he married one of the most beautiful Cusqueas, Juanita
Pineda, who lived in Malambo Street, with whom he had four children.
Over time we became friends, and in 1925 we traveled to one of his haciendas in Puno where I conducted archaeological excavations locating the
remains of the Pukara culture (Valcrcel 1981:135; emphasis added).
This visit, as documented in the Report on the Archaeological Exploration in Pukara published in Revista Universitaria (Valcrcel 1925b), was
conducted between July 14 and 20, 1925. Along with Frisancho, Valcrcel was
accompanied by the university artist in residence, Vctor Guilln.
Valcrcel, in contrast to the colonial practices of explorers like Hiram
Bingham, wanted to relate these early finds and establish the links between
the material past with the natives of the present. As he said in his Memorias:
Of the recognition that I received in [studying] archaeological monuments, it is worth referring to two of these. One is the excavation
conducted in Pukar in the Department of Puno, where I found some
ceramics and stone figures; I thought that they pertained to Tiwanaku,
but later a detailed study determined that they had a distinct style in
which unlike that which occurs in Tiwanaku, the man was represented
with claws and fangs of felines. It was of a particular style that seemed
to in the Chavn model. I left the objects in the Municipality of Pukar
with the hope that they would be the impetus for a local museum, but
unfortunately that has not happened (Valcrcel 1981:216).
In his first report in 1925, Valcrcel displays his ethnohistorical knowledge of the area and suggested early on that the site of Pukara was a much
visited shrine or pilgrimage center, an idea that would be very popular in
64
Andean archaeology over the years. He also describes how little of the surface architecture is visible and highlighted the temples in the so-called
Qalasaya, comparing these to those at Tiwanaku. He reports on the Rain
or Lightning Monolith, the most outstanding stela in the Pukara style at the
site. He also reported, for the first time, the Sacrificer or kaj monolith,
which he would publish on more extensively at a later time. He concluded
this report by linking Pukara with Tiwanaku, suggesting that it was a radiating center of culture: It is a well-founded possibility that the Great Andean
Culture expanded over the great Peruvian plains, spilling into the coastal
valleys and the highlands. Pukara is a milestone in the gigantic journey of
the Race (Valcrcel 1925b:21). Finally, a curious thing about the Memorias
is that he says that he conducted excavations in Pukara, but he does not
mention this in the report. Continued research in the archives is needed to
ascertain if he really excavated at the site. Regardless, we know from his publications that he recovered archaeological ceramic material in the Pukara
Polychrome style, which could have come from either the surface or from
excavations when Valcrcel was there.
Later, with his material collected and stored in Lima, Valcrcel published
a series of articles in the Revista del Museo Nacional (Valcrcel 1932a, 1932b,
1935). As I discuss later, Valcrcel was already serving as director of the
archaeological museum, the institution charged with publishing this journal. This journal was one of the more prestigious outlets for his ideas and
substantially helped his image in Lima. In fact, Valcrcels fame was growing and he without a doubt began to outshine the venerable Julio C. Tello,
who as we have seen had been a congressman from Huarochir in the Legua
government. Tello was in the ruling party and as a consequence was strongly
related to the official party.
Returning to Valcrcels discoveries in Puno, in addition to producing
the first inventories and scientific reports in the area, he tried to offer an
explanation of these artifacts, especially the iconic beings that were represented in Pukaras monoliths and ceramics. His explanation used myths,
iconographic comparisons, place names, and so forth in a classic study of
this period using what was effectively an ethnological approach. This methodology appears in his article El Gato de Agua (1932b), where he defines
the representation of the nutria as the principal icon recognized in most of
the Pukara stelae. But beyond this observation, something very important
in Valcrcels publications is the early connection between Pukara and the
southern coast, with cultures such as the Paracas and Nazca:6 A small, but
important number of data have been brought together. Everything seems to
65
suggest a strong link between Pukara and Naska, the highlands and the coast
(Valcrcel 1932b:3; emphasis added). He also realized early on that certain
Pukara motifs were found in Tiwanaku, although to be fair, this was fairly
well known by the 1930s.
In the same year, Valcrcel, picking up again the diffusionist framework
in his article The Mythic Personage of Pukara (1932a), established the links
between Pukara, Paracas, and Nasca as mentioned, but also expanded this
connection to the statues of San Agustn in Colombia. At San Agustn, there
were sculptures that also represented the Pukara beheader akaj that
he spoke briefly about in his 1925 report. Most of the comparisons that he
was able to make between objects from this time on are clearly due to his
greater access to the collections of the archaeological museum as well as his
conversations with Jorge C. Muelle. Muelle was Valcrcels close collaborator, trained at the Escuela de Bellas Artes de Lima. Because of this, Valcarcel
turned some attention to the history of art in the Andes. Later, in 1935, in his
article Litoesculturas y cermica de Pukara, he referred to Pukara as the
other great center of the culture of the altiplano (Valcrcel 1935:25). In the
same publication, he offers readers more evidence of Pukaras material culture. Of interest to the specialist in the archaeology of the altiplano is that,
for the first time, a researcher refers to the site of Kala Uyu, known today as
Qaluyu. Alfred Kidder later visited the site in 1939, where he excavated other
stelae in the Pukara style.
In virtually all of Valcrcels work, it is clear that the description was
more important than explanation. Even when he does offer some explanations, it is only in regard to the iconography and its comparison with other
cultures. In this sense, for Valcrcel, myths and legends were the basis to
explain the sculptural and ceramic motifs. He referred constantly to Wiracocha, most likely because of Julio C. Tello, who had published a work with that
very same name in 1923 (Tello 1923). Valcrcel also used the popular ethnological method as a means of explaining of the past. This method basically
swept away a series of ontological and epistemological problems. Valcrcel
likewise affirmed that Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer were his principal sources of ideas for his explanations from his student days in Cusco.
Valcrcel adopted a diffusionist posture, although it was more sophisticated
thanks to his experience with stratified archaeological deposits like those
Uhle excavated in Pachacamac. This is evident in Valcrcels writing, such as:
Monoliths and pottery will orient archaeologists to not only the horizontal
plane of diffusion, but also to the perpendicular or stratigraphic one, that is
the basis for theory building (Valcrcel 1935:28).
66
The Move to Lima and the 1930s

The 1930s, known politically and historically as the Tercer Militarismo
(Third Militarism) (Basadre in Contreras and Cueto 2007:261), began with
the coup dtat by Luis Miguel Snchez Cerro from Arequipa. Snchez Cerro
was later democratically elected, but his government rapidly collapsed after his assassination in 1933 in a parade by a militant Aprista. This was the
decade when a series of fascist regimes took root in Europe, including the
emergence of most virulent fascist of all, Adolf Hitler. Snchez Cerro in fact
won his election with help from the Partido Unin Revolucionaria, a party
with clear influences from Italian fascism (Molinari 2009; Pease 1995:174).
General Oscar Benavides succeeded Snchez Cerro in a military government (19331939) that lasted the decade. The success of this government was
due in no small part to manipulations of the electoral process. This lack of
representative democracy and the authoritarianism that persecuted apra
was accompanied by an inept national economic policy, although a certain
amount of monetary stability existed (Pease 1995:193). The oligarchic economic forms of the preceding decades remained in part during this decade,
but we also see a growth of national industry. The country moved to expand
their export base beyond minerals to include cotton, which displaced sugar
cane on the coast and which became one of the most important products
in the national economy. Also, given the new social realities, the Benavides
government implemented some populist policies as a reaction to apras
popularity.
The repression during the Benavides government helped keep it in power.
Its policies focused on intellectuals within political parties as well as those
in the university. Centers of intellectual opposition and critique like San
Marcos University had already been shut down in the time of Snchez de
Cerro in 1930 and stayed that way until the Benavides government finally
reopened them in 1935. This repressive measure served to reduce the number
of opposition intellectuals and forced them to the provinces or simply to immigrate to other countries.
Alberto Flores Galindo points out that in this period,
. . . after the death of Maritegui, all of Peruvian thinking moved to
the right. There was one area where this did not occur and that is in
poetry, the imagination in the most pure sense. But, for the opposite of
poetry, history, we see a strong shift to the right with one of the leaders
in Peruvian culture in the 1930s being Riva-Agero, a very conservative
person. In the 30s and 40s the field of history was purely traditional,
67
sustained by empiricism, and nurtured by the historical school of Seville.

This historical school had strong ties with Opus Dei and enthusiastically
embraced the triumph of Franco in Spain and fascism and Nazism in
the rest of Europe. This resulted in a kind of nationalistic-conservative,
chauvinistic school that maintained a traditional image of Peruvian
history, adopted by the dominant classes and imposed on the entire
country (Aguirre and Ruiz 2011:192).
The official ideology of indigenismo, promoted by the state during Leguas
dictatorship as discussed earlier, was in crisis. For at least the first years of the
1930s regimes like that of Snchez Cerro that had to confront a wave of conservatism, including parties that were explicitly fascist (Molinari 2009).
Valcrcel met Luis Snchez Cerro in 1922 when he was criticizing Leguas
government. Because of this opposition, Valcrcel was persecuted and jailed
in 1927. When Snchez Cerro assumed power in 1930,7 Valcrcel left Cusco
and became a principal intellectual in his government. He quickly relieved
Tello, an avowed Leguista, of his position as the director of the Museo
de Arqueologa Peruana; it is at this point that Valcrcel became an important figure in the political and academic
scene, and was likewise increasingly
tied to his birthplace in the Andes.
Beginning around 1934, he began
his relationship with what he called
North American ethnology, which is
basically what we now call the culture
history school, introduced to the Americas by the students of Boas at Columbia University. Tello, who was already
influenced by this school thanks to his
visits to the United States and Europe,
also defined Chavn de Huntar as a
pristine origin-place for Andean culture.
It is significant that both researchers
recognized how, although they high-
Figure 17. Luis. E. Valcrcel and Julio C. Tello

at Machu Picchu, Cusco, 1935. Courtesy of the
Luis E. Valcrcel Archive.
68
Figure 18. Jorge C. Muelle.
lighted the uniqueness of the indigenous

Andean culture, they used foreign social
theories to support their arguments and
defend the indigenous Andean races (Figure 17). This is possibly explained because
their university and political education
was influenced by Western, hegemonic
thinking, and because of their foundational
roles in anthropology and archaeology in
Peru. In spite of this, Valcrcel always
maintained that one had to explain Peruvian society from within.
Tellos archaeological project was
moved to a building adjoining the Museo
Bolivariano, where Tello had deposited and analyzed the funeral bundles
from his excavations at the Necropolis of Paracas on the southern coast since
the 1920s (Daggett 1994:58). From there he continued to develop his vision of
an archaeological museum while Valcrcel offered him a more ethnologically
focused project at the Museo de la Avenida Alfonso Ugarte (Figure 11). As Valcrcel remembers in his memoirs (1981:262), the departure of Tello and his
disciples from the museum was very dramatic and uncomfortable. Regardless, Valcrcel remained with Tello, conducting archaeological research in
his new officiallly assigned space. In 1945, Tello regained full control of the
archaeological collections and moved practically everything that he could
from the museum on Alfonso Ugarte Avenue in the center of Lima to his operation center in the district of Pueblo Libre (Valcrcel 1981:359), which would
later become the National Museum of Archaeology of Peru (Figure 12).
In 1930, Valcrcel began working with Eugenio Yacovleff and Jorge C.
Muelle. Muelle was an old student of Tellos who had been sidelined by his
mentor (Bonavia 2004:213). Therefore, with Valcrcels help, Muelle began an
important career in Peruvian archaeology rivaling that of Tello and his disciples. Muelle looked favorably upon Valcrcel, who took over the key posts
related to archaeology and education in the Peruvian state (Arqueolgicas
1974:4). Muelle later became the director of the Museo Nacional de Antropologa y Arqueologa in the following decades (19561973), but established
important contacts with North American archaeologists in the 1940s that
would affect Peruvian archaeology. Schaedel and Shimada (1982:362) call
69
this period in the history of Peruvian archaeology the Muelle-Fulbright

Phase, which would extend from 1958 to 1968. We will return to this period
later.
Conclusion
In this chapter I wanted to make it clear that Valcrcel, from his time in
Cusco and despite his lack of training as an archaeologist, contributed to
scholarship on the ancient altiplano societies, especially Pukara. He was
principally influenced by his indigenous perspectives, which were merged
with anarchism and Marxism. On the political level, his different positions
in Billinghursts democratic government and his later relationship with the
dictator Snchez Cerro had major impacts on his visibility and academic
policy, which would have profound implications in the history of archaeology in Peru.
In this sense, regarding the mix of politics and science, Valcrcel was
no different from Tello, who, in his commitment to the Legua dictatorship, defended the indigenous cause from a paternalistic perspective. This
government pushed the change of status of indigenous peoples to that of
paid workers, and at times referred to the indigenous people as a new proletarian class (Tello [1936] 1973). Nevertheless, as we saw, Tellos importance
began to diminish in the 1930s, whereas Valcrcel would continue to be an
important influence in Andean studies, occupying key positions in the Peruvian state such as Education Minister. Perhaps because of his increasingly
important role in the government, Valcrcel moved away from archaeology
and focused on broader topics. Nevertheless, the issues were always related
to indigenous people.
Tellos death in 1947 left the country without one of the most prominent
archaeologists of the first half of the twentieth century. Other researchers,
most prominently Tellos disciples, continued working in the tradition of the
master but with little success. On the north coast, Rafael Larco Hoyle garnered considerable prestige thanks to his research and collections. He too
would be a force in Peruvian archaeology, as we will now see.
Chapter 5
North American Influence in the 1940s:

Rafael Larco Hoyle and the Vir Project
Peru in the 1930s and 1940s
y the early 1940s, Peru seemed to have overcome the world economic crisis that started in the United States a decade earlier. The
social conflicts of the previous decade, which had spread to all of the
main cities of Peru, were strongly suppressed by military governments such
as that of Snchez Cerro (19311933). On the other side, the Communist Party,
after the death of Jos Carlos Maritegui, continued to follow the orthodox
instructions of the iii Communist International. The Communist party effectively failed because of the simplistic way in which they tried to apply foreign
policies in Peru.1
apra, under the leadership of Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre, came to be
the party of the popular classes (Haworth 1992:171). However, the so-called
Peoples Party maintained, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, a manifest
ambivalence with its simultaneous anti-imperialist discourse and procapitalist behavior all the while calling for a social revolution (Cotler 1978:243).2
These contradictions intensified even more when, as expected, the Peruvian
bourgeoisie, due to their economic dependence on and the policies of the us
government, did not share the political objectives of Haya de la Torre, since
these would endanger the oligarchic-imperialist scaffolding that dominated [Peruvian] society (Cotler 1978:243). Trapped between these internal
contradictions and the realities of Peruvian society, the party would never
come to power (Cotler 1978:244). Thus, apra lost the 1931 elections to Snchez Cerro and automatically became the enemy of the state.
The same receptivity to North American capitalism continued with the
government of scar Benavides between 1933 and 1939. For this reason, this
rights reserved.
70
North American Influence in the 1940s
71
government developed populist policies to suppress the impending social

revolution of the oppressed classes and to simultaneously safeguard the
interests of the national bourgeoisie and their North American allies. This
government prepared the ground for its successor, who would proceed with
the programs of the oligarchy. They succeeded in nullifying the elections of
1936. By keeping power with the help of the military, the political field was
open for his successor: Manuel Prado (Haworth 1992:173).
As expected, Prado y Ugarteche maintained the pro-oligarchy policies
in a very explicit manner between 1939 and 1945 (Haworth 1992:170), years
marked by World War ii. He also repaired Perus relationships with the Allies,
immediately breaking relations with the fascist countries.3 He signed loanlease treaties with the United States and permitted the construction of
an American base at the oil port of Talara. He also deported thousands of
Japanese residents after confiscating their properties (Haworth 1992:170).
He accepted the American wish to establish a policy of price stability of
domestic raw materials in exchange for a us tariff reduction. As Julio Cotler
noted, . . . Peru suddenly became the guardian and defender of Roosevelts
four freedoms, hoping to be repaid for its unconditional support of North
American policies (1978:254).
Thus, Perus doors were opened wide for the entry of economic colonialism, which represented a new phase. This process had begun long before with
the economic concessions to foreigners at the end of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, reflecting what happened on the American continent as
a whole. At the same time, according to Politis (1995:207), it represented the
dissolution of the ties between Western Europe and South America.
During Prados term and, more so during the government of his successor, Jos Luis Bustamante y Rivero (19451948), the apra opposition group
relaxed and abandoned their previous radical anticapitalist struggle. It also
helped that there was a degree of social and political stability, as opposed to
the earlier decade, which is illustrated by US Ambassador Prentice Coopers
telegram to the US Secretary of State in 1947: [I] am of the opinion that Haya
deserves our moral support in [an] appropriate fight against Communism
and I understand at least one American university is contemplating conferring an honorary degree upon Haya which in my opinion would be fortunate
at this time (Haworth 1992:184). As this telegram indicated, the American
ambassador considered Haya de la Torre an ally in North American anticommunist policies.4
Thanks to its political leaders, Peru was converted into a good neighbor,
the kind that US President Franklin Roosevelt wanted. In this economic
and political context, it is easier to understand the entry, development, and
72
significance of North American archaeology. It was not only the physical

presence of American scholars, but the import of theoretical explanations
of prehispanic societies that had such a strong effect. We can also see this
influence in other Latin American countries at the time.
Peruvian Archaeology in the 1940s

Given this historical context and the robust relationship between the governments of Peru and the United States, particularly during World War ii, it is
not surprising that numerous North American researchers arrived in Peru in
the 1940s. These archaeologists brought their cultural historical approaches,
and in fact data from Peru were critical to formalize this theoretical position
in their own countries.
Although this theoretical and methodological framework had been
developing in the United States and Europe for several years, and had been
introduced in Peru by Tello, it did not have sufficient support for survival.
Later, toward the end of this decade, a few archaeologists introduced a neoevolutionary theory based upon the work of Julian Steward, who had himself
been influenced by Leslie White and Gordon Childe. Therefore, from the
1940s to the 1960s, an archaeology developed that was based partially on the
Tello school5 and the cultural history perspective of the North Americans,
and partially on the influence of neoevolutionary theory. This amalgam of
theories, as we will later see, can be seen in the construction of the chronological scheme of horizons and periods.
This neoevolutionist archaeology did preserve some elements of the
earlier cultural historical approach, which would have consequences for
the academic formation of both the North American archaeologists and for
Peruvian archaeology. From the Peruvian perspective, this transition would
occur at the end of 1961, the year that John Rowe published an article critical
of the cultural evolutionism used by his North American colleagues. Yet, this
critique only slowed the neoevolutionary theory that was dominating North
American academic circles, which was evident in Peru with the arrival of
American archaeologists so strongly influenced by this paradigm.
But we return to the 1940s, when those researchers arriving in Peru
could count on financing for their archaeological investigations. They came
backed by the us government, which facilitated their rapid introduction to
the research climate in the country. This situation contrasted with the earlier
anticolonial positions adopted by many Peruvian intellectuals, in that they
resisted foreign ideas on a somewhat more level financial playing field (e.g.,
Tello with his government funding). This new situation was also fostered
73
by the intellectual vacuum left by the death of Julio C. Tello in 1947 (Burger
1989:38) and the consequent abandonment of the diffusionist thesis.
As mentioned, the researchers arrivals were more formal than before.
Institutions such as the University of California at Berkeley continued a
tradition of Andean studies, which began with Uhles early work in 1896
and increased substantially with American archaeologists such as Alfred
Kroeber (1925a), Duncan Strong (1942), John Rowe (1942a), Dorothy Menzel
(Rowe 1956), and Lawrence Dawson (Rowe [1961] 1970:41920). Also, in 1959,
San Marcos University organized a program of research on the coast in collaboration with the Fulbright Commission, which included the participation of Dwight Wallace, Lawrence Dawson, Dorothy Menzel, and Edward P.
Lanning, among others (Rowe [1961] 1970:421). All of this was made possible
by the political and economic climate in Peru at the time, which offered a
favorable situation for this unprecedented influx of foreign researchers. We
have already briefly explained this historical phenomenon; now we can focus
on the iconic archaeologists of this period. We start with Wendell C. Bennett.
The Creation of Cultural Historical Sequences: Wendell Bennett

Bennett was one of the North American archaeologists who did the most
work in the central and southern Andes, mainly through auspices of the
American Museum of Natural History (amnh) in New York. As we saw in
chapter 2, the museum had an interest in conducting excavations and collecting in the Andes and had commissioned Adolph Bandelier a generation
earlier. Bennett preceded the most influential generation of North Americans
in Peru; he had already conducted research
in Bolivia and Peru in the 1930s (Loza 2008),
interacting very well with the researchers
who arrived in the 1940s. Bennett excavated
at significant sites such as Tiwanaku and
Lukurmata (1932),6 Chiripa (1934), Chavn
de Huntar (1938), Gallinazo (1936 and 1946,
the second time as part of the Vir Project),
and Wari (1950). He began as an assistant
curator in the amnhs South American Section in 1931, where he stayed in until 1938.
Figure 19. Wendell C. Bennett. Courtesy of the

American Museum of Natural History.
74
Bennetts role as Secretary-Treasurer of the Institute of Andean Research

in 1937 also put him in a good position to work with Tello in Peruvian archaeology, especially regarding the relationship between the formative sites of
the coast and sierra, most notably Chavn. In fact, because of Tellos research,
Chavn had become a mecca for many ambitious archaeologists looking for
great discoveries. Bennett was one of those, spending 26 days in 1938 excavating at Chavn (Bennett 1944:5).
It is important to note also that the start of World War II directly affected
the foreign policy of the United States vis vis Peru; as a consequence, it also
affected the way that archaeology developed in the country. This strategic
interest on the part of the us government partly explains the presence of
North American researchers in many Latin American countries, and especially in Peru. By 1946, Bennett had already become part of the group of
American researchers led by Julian Steward.7 us academic ambition to intellectually colonize Latin American countries (as a correlate to the intrusion
of economic and political interests) materialized in the Handbook of South
American Indians, published between 1946 and 1950. The Bureau of American Ethnology published the series, and it was prepared in cooperation with
the Department of State as a project of the International Committee for Scientific and Cultural Cooperation. This was therefore a subsidiary of the us
government, and it reflected its policies towards Latin America. The model
of the Handbook was ethnology, a legacy of the work of Lewis Henry Morgan
and other evolutionary anthropologists of the nineteenth century, in which
prehispanic societies and their remnants (North American Indians, for example) were segregated from Anglo or civilized societies in the United
States. This same logic was applied to archaeological studies in the Andes.
In the second volume, The Andean Civilizations (Steward 1946), Bennett was tasked to write The Archaeology of the Central Andes. Here, for
example, he referenced the Pukara society (500 bcad 400), saying:
Pucara is represented by a characteristic type of stone building, a type
of statuary, and a distinctive ceramic style. Although it has as yet to be
thoroughly described, the implication at the moment is that it represents a basic style like Chiripa plus a strong Tiahuanaco influence. At
the same time, it cannot be dismissed as another branch of Highland
Tiahuanaco since there are too many distinctive and independent features. The masonry employs dressed stone without the Tiahuanaco jointing and notching. Stones are arranged in a pattern of large, concentric
enclosures with small roomlike divisions. The stone carving includes
some statues which resemble those at Tiahuanaco but without the strict
75
conventionalization nor the use of the fine-line incised design (Bennett

1946:121).
The concept of style (of architecture, ceramics, and stone sculpture)
was deeply ingrained in Bennetts thinking; the descriptions of those styles
were the most relevant in his chapter. Like his colleagues who worked on the
northern coast of Peru (Willey or Strong), Bennett was obsessed with creating cultural sequences. In 1950, for instance, he wrote:
Most archaeologists who have dealt with comparative chronology have
grouped adjacent valleys and compared their combined cultural sequences with those of a highland basin. The justification for this procedure has been the assumption that cultural uniformity would be found
throughout these regional units in any given time period (Bennett
1950:89).
By 1943, Bennett envisioned a Chavn influence at Pukara (Bennett 1943),
following in Tellos footsteps. But later, having accumulated enough archaeological data, he tried to understand the Lake Titicaca Basin as a whole
(Bennett 1950:97). This analysis was an interesting hypothetical synthesis, effectively negating Tellos hypothesis. This went well beyond the archaeology
of the time, which had isolated some cultures on the basis of eponymous
centers.8 Bennett suggested that the northern and southern Titicaca Basin
regions never seem to have been united, except in the Inca period and even
then there are significant differences (Bennett 1950:97). He reinforced this
with an analysis of the Pukara and Tiwanaku relationship:
In the early periods, as now known, the North Titicaca Basin was dominated by Pucara, the South by Tiahuanaco. The distribution of these
major periods is mutually exclusive. In fact neither is clearly represented
on either the eastern or western side of the lake. To be sure the two share
certain general features, such as planned construction, stone carving,
polychrome ceramics, and design details, but the major formulations
are distinct (Bennett 1950:97).
Bennetts ideas about Pukara society and the entire Titicaca area illustrate his logic for explaining prehispanic societies using artifact and building styles. However, Bennett soon would have to deal with the significant
explanatory changes because of the new theoretical and methodological
approaches that appeared in Peru in the 1940s, most of which came from his
own country.
76
The Rejection of Tellos Diffusionism:

Gordon Willey and the Vir Project
When Willey (Figure 20) began working in the Andean area, the cultural
historical school dominated the academic environment. As he points out,
referring to Peru and Bolivia:
A synthesizing factor has been the description and chronological
arrangement of broad-horizon-style phenomena as the means of
interrelating cultural sequences within the area. . . . Careful refinement
and cross matching of these archaeological sequences provided the
basis for a theory of cultural-area unity with some 3,000 years of estimated time-depth, the Peruvian Co-Tradition. . . (Willey 1952:58).
Other works in this new school of thought included Peruvian Archeology
in 1942 by Alfred Kroeber (1944), Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian Archaeology by Gordon Willey (1945), and Andean Culture History by
Wendell Bennett and Junius Bird (1949).
But by far, the criticism of Tellos theoretical framework became much
more evident in a 1947 meeting in New York sponsored by the Wenner-Gren
Foundation, organized by Kroeber and later published as A Reappraisal of
Peruvian Archaeology (Bennett 1948). We see, therefore, that the major syntheses of the prehispanic past in the central Andes during these years was
distinctly American. This had a serious impact on the practice of archaeology in the Andes and elsewhere in Latin America.
At this time, the goal of most of excavations was to define cultural sequences.9 Concepts such as cultural area and tradition were applied and
rapidly assimilated in Andean studies. It is
worth remembering that Willey (1952:-58)
and his associates in the Vir Valley expedition in 1946 had already established the
concept of settlement pattern, a decidedly
functionalist concept put into practice in
Mexico (Burger 1989:45). As a result of these
cultural historical approaches, settlement
patterns were carried out in Peru: . . . [I]t
for the first time emphasized the need to
create a master sequence, which at the
same time would allow the location [of cul-
Figure 20. Gordon Willey.
77
tures] in time and the human interpretation in a limited environment; it

would provide the foundations for broader correlations with the other Andean areas (Ravines 1970:16).
The origin of the settlement pattern concept is found in cultural history,
as Willey used in Vir (Stanish 1999:116; Trigger 1992:264). To this was added
the functionalist burden given to societies from a cultural ecological perspective. Steward was a proponent of this perspective, and motivated Willey
to do this project (Stanish 2001:216). Ontologically, the most important concept was that of culture, which, as we have seen, was first extensively used
by Tello, and also by Willey. Although culture was an object of study to be
explained, he continued to regard society as a living organism, one that selfregulates and adapts to ecological conditions. This concept was borrowed
from the evolutionists of the nineteenth century, and was a foundation of the
cultural history discourse. This is very important because, in principle, it left
the door open for their subsequent assimilation as processualists, another
even more sophisticated functionalist framework.
Therefore, the definition of culture (an ideational universe in which
concrete acts took place [Lull and Mic 1997:118]) was achieved (empirical
and inductively) by using ceramics as an index fossil. In other words, the
presence of the same kind of pottery in different settlements indicated a
cultural unity. The diachronic dimension was relevant in settlement pattern
studies insofar as cultures succeeded each other like stacked shelves: where
one culture ended, the other began ( for example, Willey 1952). Since society
(culture) was conservative by nature (i.e., self-regulating to arrive at homeostasis), social changes expressed in ceramics or changes in settlement patterns were due to external pressure from other societies or serious climatic
changes. In fact, Willey defended the extensive use of the horizon concept,
a correlative of the spread of ceramics or settlement types, as an important
methodological tool (Kidder 1956; Willey 1952).
Epistemologically, the settlement pattern approach became a regional
methodology in scope that recognized cultures through space and time,
understood as functionally integrated entities. This effectively begins in Peru
with the Vir Project. The explanation of cultures and their formation in
space was mediated through analogies based upon the formal similarities
between the artifacts and their modern correlates. Although based upon
empirical objects, the social interpretation led fundamentally to the essentializing of cultures, which were then projected onto the past. With the indexfossil or type-site concept, a decorated ceramic style produced most likely
by an elite class became the basis of the comparison, definition, and hierarchization of people into advanced or backward societies, nuclear or
78
marginal societies. This is obvious in Stewards Handbook, and is clear evidence of the evolutionism of this work.
Willey also emphasized the definition of horizon style, a concept that,
as we saw in chapter 2, Uhle had already established at the end of the nineteenth century and that Kroeber had been using since 1942 in Peru. Willey
himself described the situation:
Most North American archaeologists in the Peruvian field have followed
in the tradition of the German scholar, Max Uhle, particularly the Uhle
scheme as it has been explained and enlarged by A. L. Kroeber. The UhleKroeber methodology is that of cross-dating regional culture sequences
of Peru with stylistic time-markers, or horizon styles. The goal is to build
a time-space framework of cultures as synchronously perfect as possible.
The Incaic and Tiahuanaco styles were employed as horizons, but neither
Uhle nor Kroeber used Chavn in this manner (Willey [1951] 1970:108).
In this way, we see how North American archaeologists were largely
united in their opposition to Tello and instead felt more comfortable
with Larco Hoyle, as Willey noted: North American opinion on the
functional significance of the widespread Chavn-style manifestations
is closer to that of Larco than to that of Tello (Willey [1951] 1970:109).
This position cannot be understood without noting that Rafael Larco
Hoyle had the full backing of the us archaeologists (Figure 21). Trained in the
United States, Larco Hoyle was a member of the landed bourgeoisie that had
emerged on the north coast, owning a large property in Chicama Valley. Larco
Hoyle likewise developed his thesis as a
counter to Tellos, arguing that the
spirit of Chavn art was coastal, not
from the sierra or the Amazon (Larco
Hoyle [1938] 2001:28). Larcos theories
also belie a strong political-ideological
subtext, which is understandable because at that time there was a struggle
over productive forces in the country
and conflict between the sierra and the
coast (bourgeois landowners versus
dispossessed peasants). Tellos theory of
Figure 21. Rafael Larco Hoyle. Courtesy of the

Larco Museum Archive
79
Chavns sierra origin can be seen as part of his own ideological and political
motives.
With these criticisms, Willey became the leading voice in opposition to
Tellos thesis of the unity of Andean civilization, and the ground was prepared
for new theories from North American archaeologists.
The Chicln Roundtable (1946)

In the 1940s, Willey and his group were creating the first primary cultural
sequences with data from Vir. The Chicln Roundtable was convened to discuss their approaches with the greatest authority on the north coast: Larco
Hoyle. Larco Hoyle hosted the Chicln Roundtable, which was sponsored by
the members of the Vir Project of the Institute of Andean Research (Ramn
2005:11). As discussed in chapter 3, Tello and Kroeber founded the iar, which
was a bastion of the classic cultural history tradition with strong influences
from evolutionary theory. Ramn (2005) has extensively studied the significance of the Chicln Roundtable, especially in regards to the chronological
frameworks that were proposed. Here I focus only on Larco Hoyle and his
approach.
The life of Larco Hoyle has been presented in a number of publications
(Castillo 2001; Evans 1968). He was born and raised in the provincial oligarFigure 22. Chicln Museum, Chicama Valley, La Libertad, 2009. Photo by Henry Tantalen.
80
chy known as the Sugar Barons by the Apristas (Burga and Flores Galindo
1984:51). This socioeconomic class was intimately linked with the sugar cane
boom on the north coast in the first decades of the twentieth century, specifically in the Chicama Valley. Of particular interest to us is that the Hacienda
Chicln was in the center of these plantations. A brief history of the Larco
family can help us to understand the context of the Chicln Roundtable.
The first-generation immigrant Larco brothers were born on the island of
Sardinia, Italy, and arrived in Lima in the middle of the nineteenth century
as merchants. Two of these brothers, Andrs and Rafael Larco, moved to
Chicama in 1867. Rafael Larco married Josefina Herrera. When Rafael Larco
died in 1888, his heirs founded the Viuda de Larco e Hijos Company with
the intent to work the Hacienda Chiquitoy, located on the south margin of
the Chicama Valley. In 1895, the company leased Chicln but, given a series
of family setbacks, the business was dissolved. Victor Larco Herrera became
the sole owner of the mill, the reed beds, and other capital at Chiquitoy.
He later bought the hacienda from this uncle Andrs. The other siblings
Rafael, Alberto, Mara, and Carlosformed the Sociedad Larco Herrera
with the intent to work the Chicln land, but over time, new family conflicts
Figure 23. North AmericanChicln Roundtableattendants. From left to right: unidentified,
Donald Collier, unidentified, Junius Bird, Wendell C. Bennett, James Ford, Gordon Willey,
Clifford Evans, and Duncan Strong. Courtesy of the Larco Museum Archive.
81
fragmented the resources and land. At this time, Rafael Larco Herrera was
already collecting antiquities and had an interest in how the ancient prehispanic inhabitants of this area had solved the water supply problem in the
valley (Burga and Flores Galindo 1984:53).
Thus, Rafael Larco Hoyle grew up in an area rich in archaeology, in a cultured and philanthropic family, though primarily they were landowners and
members of a provincial aristocratic family. His studies in the United States
and his European tour increasingly drew him to the hegemonic archaeology of that time. Certainly, his life was full of different motivations vis vis
archaeology; for instance, Larco Hoyle founded the Museo Arqueolgico
de Chicln in 1926 with his vast personal collection, an early example of the
private creation of an archaeological institution in Peru (Figure 22). His work
is important because it was foundational for the archaeology of Perus northern coast, discovering cultures much as Tello did, and creating the famous
phases of the Moche. Larco rivaled Tello not only because of this private
museum but also because of his divergent views on the origin of the mother
culture of Andean society. Obviously, one can see that each had a personal
vision of archaeology rooted in their divergent life experiences, research
interests, ideologies, and political agenda.
With the Chicln Roundtable, Larco Hoyle finally dominated north-coast
archaeology as well as Peruvian archaeology in general. He used this opportunity to articulate his plans for Peruvian archaeology with members
of the Vir Project (Figure 23). As Ramn says: Although the Roundtable
included the principal national authorities (Jorge Muelle, Julio Tello, and
Luis Valcrcel), of the Peruvians, only the host participated (2005:11). As we
noted earlier, Valcrcel dominated the archaeological scene at this time, and
Muelle was one of his principal collaborators.10 At this time, Tello was finishing up his last projects, specifically at the site of Pachacamac (see Figure 14).
Tello would die soon thereafter in June 1947 (Bueno 2010:24), just a year after
the Chicln Roundtable.
Discussion
The 1940s were important globally with a war between two large blocs;
although it was largely a European and Asian conflict, it affected many countries around the world. Peru was no exception. The war also created alliances
among countries of the world, Peru included, although its participation was
peripheral. As primarily a commodities export country, Peru had to decide
where her loyalties were and whom it would support in this global conflict.
The government opted for the Allies and imported certain us policies at
82
home. Therefore, because of World War ii, us influence was felt in various
fields, including the intellectual and ideological.
One of the great archaeological investigations in the world, the Vir
Project, took place during this time, coinciding with the publication of the
Handbook of South American Indians as part of a project sponsored by official
institutions of the us government. Also, apart from American archaeologists, Rafael Larco Hoyle became the predominant archaeological intellectual in the country thanks to his work of many decades on the north coast
and his shared vision with the Vir Project archaeologists. In Lima, Tellos
health faded along with his intellectual and political importance, his major
ideas increasingly being displaced by more innovative ones. His disciples
struggled to keep his legacy alive, but were increasingly more marginalized
within the national archaeological scene.
Thus, the archaeology of the 1940s marks what Alexander Herrera
(2010:149)following Trigger (1989a:623)calls the beginning of a global
archaeology; that is, an archaeology that clearly articulates the interests
and projects of the hegemonic centers of intellectual and economic power.
Peruvian archaeology in later decades would be conducted within this perspective, and political changes would favor yet again other kinds of archaeology, including the support of nationalist archaeologies.
Chapter 6
New Horizons In Peruvian Archaeology:

John H. Rowe And The Berkeley School
Peru in the 1950s
eru in this decade is clearly identified with the government of General

Manuel A. Odra (19481956), which some historians have called El
Ochenio, and the second government of Prado y Ugarteche (1956
1962). Odra came to power after a coup against Jos Luis Bustamante y
Riveros government by the Peruvian armed forces. He ruled as a de facto
provisional government, as he himself referred to it in one of his speeches.
It was also known as the military junta that ruled from 1948 to 1950. Later, in
an irregular electoral process in which the primary opponent, General Montagne, was jailed on El Frontn Island near the coast of Callao, Odra won
the elections and remained in power until 1956. His government, which as
been recognized by some researchers as a kind of militarismo desarrollista1
(Mendible 1994; Rodrguez 2012; Seplveda 1972), were identified, through a
liberal political economy, with the interests of the coastal agricultural oligarchs in alliance with foreign multinationals, especially North Americans
(Thorp and Bertram [1978] 1988:311). The political alliances followed those already established, as we saw in the previous chapter, with the Allies of World
War II, especially the United States.
It is in this time that the Peruvian government contracted with the Klein
Mission (19491955) to carry out the reorganization of our economic, financial and administrative systems, especially in monetary and budget policy, as
well as reforming the regulations, business practices and customs to remove
the obstacles which hinder the free development of economic activities in
the country (Palacios 2006:122). Odras government followed the recommendations of the Klein Mission to restructure and liberalize the economy.
rights reserved.
83
84
As Nelson Manrique says: The colonial character of the Peruvian economy

was radical. The Peruvian industrial bourgeoisie was just a satellite of the
us, as it was explained by the very same staff of the US Department of War
saying that the Peruvian businessmen had just provided valuable knowledge
about the market and the contacts to deal with the government and the
unions (Manrique 2009:154).2
With the enactment of legislation favorable to foreign capital, American
business invaded the national economy with few restrictions, especially in
mineral extraction activities. For example, during the Odra administration
concessions for oil exploitation were given to the International Petroleum
Company, the Marcona Mining Company was established in Ica for iron
exploitation; soon thereafter, the Southern Peru Copper Corporation in
Moquegua was founded. The United States increasing influence was felt not
only in Peru, but was a phenomenon seen in many Latin American economies. The Korean War (19501953) intensified these unequal economic relationships. US international policy was not solely focused on economic matters; because the Soviet Union and its communist ideology began to make
inroads into other countries, the United States increased both its physical
presence and ideological pressure in Latin America. This was, of course, the
period known as the Cold War, which had begun shortly after the end of
World War II and drew more countries around the world into the conflict
in the 1950s.3 Quite a few Latin American intellectuals participated in the
ideological conflict of the Cold War during this time (Albuquerque 2010).
In Peru, the economic development policies of the Odra government
brought the greatest economic boom in its contemporary history (Palacios
2006:115), although this was particularly evident in the capital at the expense
of rural areas. In fact, many of Perus great iconic federal buildings were built
in this era: the Hospital del Empleado (now Rebagliatti); the Hospital Militar
Central (Coronel Luis Arias Schreiber); the Naval Hospital; the Ministries of
Work, Education, and Economy; the Estado Nacional; and the Grandes Unidades Escolares.
While the government opted for populist policies oriented to the lower
social classes, the political landscape was quite somber; there was clearly a
well-organized control of society, especially in Lima, in which the military
had a significant role in spite of the fact that Peru was technically a democracy. It is sufficient to look at the novel Conversation in the Cathedral by
Mario Vargas Llosa (1969), which well illustrates the regimes persecution
of political thought in that decade. Even apra was still persecuted. In fact,
in a message to the country, Odra blamed the coup on the ineptness of his
predecessor, Bustamante y Rivero, but more important, he blamed apra.4 In
New Horizons in Peruvian Archaeology
85
his message to the country on July 27, 1949, he began with a diatribe against
apra. Odra, in one of his most vicious statements, says: I declare to you, as
President of Peru, that the 23 years of apra constituted a string of offenses
against all rights and all obligations [of the nation], against individuals and
against institutions, against the past and against the future (Odra 1948). In
this context of strengthening Peruvian-American relations, it is not surprising that the United States looked favorably on Perus policy of apras political persecution.
Manuel Prados second government (19561962) continued the policies
of his first term as well as the Odra economic policies, although he now allied with apra in what was known as the Coexistence (La Convivencia).
This is also the period of the fishing boom, a time of economic success fueled from mainly from the fishmeal industry. This energized the economy,
especially for the upper-class coastal urban elites. The city of Lima, like other
coastal cities, became a magnet for many rural families; as a consequence,
this generated a substantial demographic growth and led to social problems,
particularly in the absence of state planning. It also prepared the foundations of what Jos Matos Mar (1986) called the popular flood (desborde
popular). Meanwhile, the agrarian areas were in a precarious situation.
There were conflicts between the local authorities and the provincial elites
that controlled the land and the labor of the campesinos on their properties.
This was very clear in the pressures for land reform, like in La Convencin
Valley, Cusco, headed by Hugo Blanco and others, that we will see later were
linked with those called the guerrillas of Peru.
Peruvian Archaeology in the 1950s

It is in this context that foreign archaeologists, particularly North Americans,
began to arrive in Peru and influence the national archaeology. Clearly, Tello,
with his death in 1947, had faded from the national scene, and his disciples,
including Rebeca Carrin Cachot and Toribio Mejia Xesspe, focused on the
legacy of their mentor. Carrin Cachot became director of the National Archaeological Museum (19471960); Mejia Xesspe was her undersecretary.
While Schaedel and Shimada (1982:361) suggest that Carrin Cachot
established control of the national archaeological research and had a
monolithic authority over the regional authorities (Patronatos Regionales
de Arqueologa), we also see that foreign archaeologists continued to arrive
to conduct their research, particularly the North Americans.
This happened essentially because there were few professionally trained
archaeologists in Peru in the 1950s, and because Tello did not leave a true
86
school of archaeologists (Matos Mendieta 1985:8), apart from his disciples,

that continued their research in the style of their mentor. Toward the end of
the decade the level of collaboration between American archaeologists and
Peruvian students increased at San Marcos University due in large part to the
financial support of the Fulbright Commission, which resulted in the first
generation of professional archaeologists in the country. One of these North
American archaeologists, John Rowe, had started his research in Peru with
the help of the Fulbright Commission in the mid-1940s. During this time, he
and his students (Menzel, Dawson, and Wallace) began the construction of
the basic typologies and chronologies of Peruvian archaeology.
John Rowe and the Horizon Framework of Peruvian Archaeology

John Rowes academic career continues to inform the basic structure of Andean archaeologys explanatory framework. At the time, many of his proposals revolutionized Andean archaeological theory and method. One of his
main contributions was a temporal and spatial pattern to lock in archaeological explanations about prehispanic societies, such as the horizons and
periods associated with the Master Ica sequence (Rowe [1962] 1967). Obviously, these frameworks were conditioned by archaeological thought introduced in Peru mainly through the arrival of these foreigners, although no
doubt there was similar impact from Peruvian scholars such as Luis E. Valcrcel and Tello. Thus, in the years that Rowe worked in Peru there was an
existing cultural historical framework (though with underlying evolutionary
elements) that explained the cultural change in ancient times as a result of
the dissemination of cultural patterns from an origin center (e.g., Tello 1929).
Trained as a classicist, Rowe received his doctorate from Brown
University and specialized in linguistics and philology, with an emphasis on humanistic investigation (Hamel 1969:92). From this, one can see
a strong reliance on ancient documents for this kind of research. In
Peru, Rowe would study the prehispanic societies through the ethnohistoric documents and later develop a cultural historical orientation
(Hamel 1969:923; also see Rowe 1950, 1953). He published his first archaeological article in 1942 (A New Pottery Style from the Department
of Piura, Peru) with the Carnegie Institution of Washington (Pfeiffer
1969).5 He would also participate in the influential Handbook of South
American Indians edited by Julian Steward (1946), writing a chapter on
the Incas that would be come a classic text for the study of this society
(Rowe 1946).
87
As mentioned, Rowe was educated in the American cultural historical

environment and proposed his chrono-spatial schemes as objectively as
possible.6 Moreover, the continual innovation and improvements of these
postulates led Rowe himself to avoid rigid chronological frameworks. To the
contrary, Rowe saw these as heuristic tools to be changed with new data. Curiously, these tools were so successful that up to the present day his cultural
historical framework has been hybridized with neoevolutionary alterations
(Ramn 2005). One can therefore argue that while Rowe sought to avoid
social evolutionary theories of the time, his historical framework ironically
served as an epistemological bridge between classic evolutionary theory of
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the emergent neoevolutionary theory of the 1950s and 1960s.
Beyond this, Rowes impact can be seen in different cultural areas where
he used his framework. Indeed, many of his contemporary colleagues and
those who have followed him have used virtually the same concepts.
New Horizons and Periods in Andean Archaeology

Rowe also used a cultural historical methodology that has left a legacy to
this day in Andean archaeology (Tantalen 2004). This framework basically
follows the development of stylistic horizons, adding the Early and Late Intermediate Periods (e.g., see Ravines 1970:22). Eugene Hamel (1969) explains
Rowes ideas:
Another paper, also published in 1962 [Rowe (1962) 1967], deals with the
theoretical implications of the concepts of stages, periods, and horizons
in archaeology. The treatment is again carefully historical, going back to
Petries work in Egypt at the beginning of the twentieth century. Rowe
makes a very careful case for the superiority of arrangement of data
by period rather than by stage, because unwarranted evolutionistic
assumptions are made in the stage concept and because the integrity
of cultural associations involved in the stage concept is usually valid
only over small geographical areas. In fact, he gives convincing evidence
from his own work that careful use of relative dating and a system of
periods is much more productive of real historical understanding. What
Rowe has done in all these papers is to act like a historian. It is not only
that he is careful with and sensitive to the history of the problem; more
importantly, he treats archaeological data as historians treat documents
(Hamel 1969:956).
88
Rowe worked long and hard in Peru to develop this framework:

Rowes major empirical work has been in the southern portion of Peru,
around Cuzco and on the southern coast. Working first from the scaffold
of Uhles reports and the later work of Kroeber, Strong, and others, he
has revised their conclusions and constructed a detailed archaeological
sequence for most of the Peruvian highlands and coast. For some parts
of the sequence, and in some areas, it has been possible to specify time
periods as narrow as 2550 years, a standard achieved nowhere, in the
absence of written documents, beyond Greece and a few adjacent areas
(Hamel 1969:956).
Rowes research was influenced by the discipline of art history as well as
classics. It is not a coincidence that his father was the director of the Rhode
Island School of Design Museum of Art in Providence. Thanks to him, John
Rowe had his first field experience in archaeology. As Rowe (1998) himself
says: As often happens, the children often end up doing what the parents
want.
Against the current of the time, Rowe viewed the evolutionary concept of
stages as inappropriate. For him, stages ordered societies in predetermined
sequences and relied on the inherently flawed concept of index fossils.7 He
instead proposed the use of periods or units of contemporaneity.8
Because of the close association of stages with the theory of cultural
evolution, virtually every archaeologist who uses stages to organize his
data thereby builds into them certain assumptions about cultural
developments without being aware that he is doing so. Later, in marking
his cultural interpretations, he discovers the pattern of cultural development which was assumed in his system of organization and thinks
that he is deriving it empirically from the data. The argument becomes
perfectly circular (Rowe [1962] 1967:12).
The use of periods would prevent this tautology, since they do not
involve assumptions about cultural patterns. Yet, we should remember that
Rowe maintained a strong diffusionist assumption concerning the existence
of cultural units:
The usual situation is that inventions are made one at a time. However,
once a series of inventions has been made and the new items have spread
over a large area, they may become associated with one another as parts
of a single cultural pattern, as has happened in the case of Christianity,
monogamy, and trousers (Rowe [1962] 1967:3).
89
The Ocucaje Master Sequence

Along with Lawrence Dawson and Dorothy Menzel, Rowe conducted research at the site of Ocucaje in the hacienda of the same name in the middle
valley of Ica, south of Lima (19541955, 1958, 19591960, and 1961) (Menzel
et al. 1964:iii). Rowes student Dawson headed the fieldwork, but the periodization was due to the work of Menzel, another of Rowes students, using
ceramic styles and the broad vision that both of these scholars had for incorporating local phenomena with pan-Andean ones. The excavation in Ocucaje
(19591960) served as an empirical basis for a new stylistic and chronological
sequence (relative and absolute) that would provide a framework for the explanation of other regions of the Andean world. Gabriel Ramn (2005:1718;
see also Del guila 2010:111) describes events and intellectual context of the
work at Ocucaje:
In 1952 Rowe initiated a project with Dawson to seriate the Paracas and
Nazca pottery. They were later joined by Dorothy Menzel. In collaboration
with other specialists, also of the University of California (Berkeley)
they would travel to Ica for intensive studies, from the Preceramic to the
Colonial epoch. This allowed them to work on two fronts. Specifically,
they proposed a new relative chronology for the ceramic material from
Ica. They used museum collections to create the Nasca sequence. Phases
were defined by funerary associations and fragments found in domestic
contexts. They identified the stylistic extremes (Paracas and Huari),
seriating the materials by similarities and not assuming any a priori
changes in style change over time, as did their predecessors. They then
established the preliminary sequence and then contrasted it with more
recent excavations and seven carbon dates. The result was a sequence
of nine phases. . . . They did the same with the Paracas materials. After
several adjustments, the preliminary classification of four phases lead
to a more refined-and corrected-ten. . . . The later periods of the same
sequence (Middle Horizon to Late Horizon) were systematized by
Menzel. . . . This work was complemented by others, such as the thesis of
Edward Lanning (1960), which served to define the Initial Period and the
work of Thomas Patterson (1966) on the Early Intermediate Period of the
Central Coast (Ramn 2005:1718).
In reality, Rowe tried to establish a sequence as historical as possible,
with a succession of styles that made a stylistic horizon a central concept.
As Muller (1966:47) says, Essentially, the Ica study is one of design features.
Although the first line of the report states that it is stylistic analysis (which,
90
of course, it is in part) its main interest lies in distinguishing what Rowe

(1959) has called significant features, that is, features which are useful for
the making of chronological distinctions.
While the master sequence has not been without criticism, it is important to remember that the proposal was intended to be a heuristic device. It
was recognized that Rowe did not directly apply the sequence to areas distant from Ica or in places where the influences of certain styles like Chavn
were evident.
Conclusion
John Rowes influence in Andean archaeology, both theoretically and empirically, begins with his initial work in the southern sierra. Rowe came to the
city of Cusco in 1939 and immediately began a lively scholarly interaction
with his American colleagues as well as with celebrated Peruvian scholars
such as Manuel Chvez Balln and Oscar Nez del Prado. This work from
the 1940s to the 1960s distinguished the archaeology of the region. It can
be understood as part of a general historical process in which at least two
theoretical schoolscultural history and social evolutionengaged in a
dialectical tension that reflected the theory and praxis of twentieth-century
archaeology.
Likewise, many of the concepts and categories defined by Rowe still
affect the way in which we represent Andean archaeology. As we have
seenand as Rowe himself notedthese broader theoretical concepts are
only heuristic devices. Only the absolute chronologies (such as those in the
master sequence in Ica) can guarantee any advance in the archaeological
investigations of prehispanic societies.
Rowes work in Peru continued the tradition of Berkeley researchers that
we already saw in the work of Uhle and, later, Alfred Kroeber and his students. Rowe also wanted to establish analytical tools and methods to cover
the greater part of the Andes. His influence is such that we continue to use
the horizon system. While his system has limitations, it is still a valuable
frame of reference to understand the broad outlines of prehispanic Andean
civilizations.
Chapter 7
Ethnohistory and Archaeology in the 1960s:

John Murras Influence in Peru
Peru in the 1960s
he previous chapter outlined the veritable golden age of the Peruvian economy in the 1950s. Yet, the military had to intervene again,
especially in politics and the national economy, in the late 1960s. As
Nelson Manrique says:
From a military perspective, the growing dependence of the Peruvian
economy in relation to the us economy compromised the independence
of the country, endangering national security. The armed forces saw
these developments with growing concern. This profound ideological
shift that started in the late fifties, culminated in the Velasco revolution.
An important factor in this shift was the questioning of the process of
denationalization [privatization] of the national resources and the
conviction that those that benefitted would not be allowed to defend the
interests of the nation (Manrique 2009:154).
The 1960s, especially from 1962 to the coup of Velasco Alvarado in 1968,
was a politically convulsive time in Peru. During these years there was a military junta (19621963) and the first government of the architect Fernando
Belande Terry (19631968). There were enormous social problems in the
provinces, where many had risen up against the unjust socioeconomic system
that favored the rights of the propertied classes over those of the campesinos.
The 1960s also was the era of the great peasant movements demanding
land as well as the formation of leftist groups that took up arms. Various
guerrilla groups formed, including those of Luis de la Puente Uceda of Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (mir). These guerrillas were inspired by
rights reserved.
91
92
the revolutionary struggles of other Latin American countries such as Cuba

and sought, through armed struggle, to change the plight of the dispossessed
in the country, especially in rural areas. The government, not surprisingly,
fought back. This time, Belande Terrys administration virtually exterminated the heads of these groups. As Contreras and Cueto write: Backed by
North American aid in many cases and Napalm bombings, the government
sent in the army and by 1966 the guerillas were crushed (Contreras and
Cueto 2009:322).
Faced with this social conflict, Belande sought some mild reforms, including land redistribution; he even tried to nationalize a number of North
American companies. However, all of these problems would multiply, and because of his incapacity to control the situation and provide a solution to the
conflict between foreign capital and the poverty in the country, the military
would take power again and put in place the reforms demanded for a generation. Even though Belande had started these reforms, a faction of the military
saw that the situation needed a radical change in the structure of government.
Parallel to this was the global conflict of the times. The 1960s saw a new
high in Cold War tensions. Peru, a country with numerous social problems,
was a place where Communist ideologies could find fertile ground. The US
government noted this with great interest, as it did with other countries of
South America. Anthropology was one of the ways in which they could quickly learn firsthand the realities of the country, especially in rural areas. The
Peru-Cornell Project, led by Allan Holmberg, who had been part of the Vir
Project, intervened directly in the community of Vicos in Ancash between
1952 and 1963. Such projects can be seen as part of a community development policy established and imposed from the outside. Marisol de la Cadena
(2007) notes that, in regard to the policies of the United States toward Peru:
In striking contrast to Mexico, the financial support of the Peruvian State
to anthropology weakened in the sixties, and in the same decade, private
institutions in the United States and Europe began to finance major interdisciplinary groups of experts and political and academic institutions where
anthropology had something important to say (de la Cadena 2007:118). It
was in this context that the National Science Foundation financed the work
of John Murra in Hunuco.
John Murra and the Andes

The ethnohistorical approach in explaining the prehispanic past in Peru can
trace its origins back to the nineteenth-century historians themselves, who
detected in the primary chronicles the first evidence of the prehistory of the
Ethnohistory and Archaeology in the 1960s
93
Andes. However, this approach began to have real impact only in the twentieth century, especially through the work of John Rowe, as we saw earlier.
John Victor Murra (19162006), Rowes near-contemporary researcher from
the United States, was born in Eastern Europe (specifically the Ukraine, but
moved to Romania)1 and helped develop this research tradition. Some of
the greatest ethnohistorians of our time, Mara Rostworowski and Franklin
Pease, also emerged at this time. Murras work was methodologically significant because he generated a research framework and a group of disciples
that tested his ethnohistorically generated ideas with archaeological data.
Murra was interested in prehispanic societies long before his arrival in
Peru in 1958. He had traveled in Ecuador from August 1941 to February 1942
(Barnes 2009b:8;) gathering data for his masters thesis (Barnes 2009:2b;
Murra 1942); he also published an article with Donald Collier and Sharat K.
Roy (Collier et al. 1943) and two chapters himself in the Handbook of South
American Indians (Murra 1946, 1948).2 He maintained his collaboration with
Julian Steward, the editor of the Handbook, in 1948 and 1949 when he worked
under him in the Peoples of Puerto Rico Project (19471950). Murra conducted ethnographic research in six communities on this island (Salomon
2007:793 cited in Barnes 2010:12).
Marisol de la Cadena notes:
In 1952, while still a graduate student at the University of Chicago, Murra
traveled to Jamaica, hired by his friend, the American anthropologist
Sydney Mintz, and then traveled to Puerto Rico under the auspices of
Julian Steward. From Jamaica, Murra went to Cuba where he met
Fernando Ortiz, the author of Contrapunto cubano. Tabaco y azcar . . .
perhaps the earliest historical ethnography produced by a Latin
American intellectualits first edition had a preface by Bronislaw
Malinowski. . . . From Cuba, Murra took a boat to the Yucatan and then a
plane to Mexico City, where he met another anthropologist, the Spaniard
Angel Palerm, where they spent long hours talking about anthropology
and revolution. . . . Later, he also would participate in conversations
with the Mexican Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrn who had studied anthropology at Northwestern University with Melville Herskovitz and, like
Ortiz, was interested in africana. This dense social networkof friendship, opportunity, academic interests and political viewsthat connected many different countriesthe US, Cuba Mxico, Spain and
Romaniashows the complexity of anthropological conceptual interactions between North and South America. This also suggests the existence of a Latin American intellectual network beyond the borders of
individual countries (de la Cadena 2007:112).
94
So Murra, who also had fought in the Spanish Civil War with the International Brigade, continued to cultivate his relationships with leftist intellectuals in Latin America. In other areas, however (Barnes 2010:14), one can
see his alienation from the Marxist left, basically because he had lived in a
repressive communist regime and was disillusioned from his experience in
Spain. In spite of this, Murra continued to be motivated by leftist and materialist ideas, and one can understand his closeness with like-minded intellectuals in South America.
In 1956, using sources from already published material, Murra finished
his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, a work that would
become one of the most influential in understanding Inca economic organization. Beginning in 1958, he followed this research focus with studies on
the relationship between the Incas and their subject peoples, such as that
seen in the Visitas of Chucuito (Dez de San Miguel [1567] 1964) and Hunuco
(Ortz de Zuiga [1562] 1967).3 Basing his theories on these primary source
documents, Murra created one of the most important models of Andean
political economy: the vertical archipelago.
Murras work was inspired by substantivist economic historians and
anthropologists, especially Karl Polanyi,4 a professor at Columbia University.
Polanyi was celebrated for his book The Great Transformation (1944), and
was developing ideas with his colleagues that would be published in a book
called Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957; see Barnes 2010:1314).
This framework was politically and theoretically leftist. Murras doctoral
thesis, The Economic Organization of the Inca Empire, was clearly in this
tradition and provided a deeper materialist understanding of Inca society. It
also marked an important point in which archaeology would be integrated
with the early chronicles. It was now necessary for Murra to prove his hypothesis in the field (Figure 24).
As Monica Barnes (2010) writes:
In 1958 and 1959, with his passport in hand, and on leave from Vassar
[the university where he taught in these years], Murra conducted
ethnological and ethnohistorical work in Peru. . . . In the 195960
academic year Murra did additional archival research in Lima. During
this period Murra taught a general course, The Economic Organization
of the Inca State, based on his dissertation and an advanced seminar,
Ethnohistorical Uses of the xvith Century Sources on Inca Social
and Economic Organization, at San Marcos University in Lima. Up to
this point Murra had had little opportunity to work with unpublished
archival sources himself, although he saw the potential and had
95
subjected available published sources to close readings. Attending his

classes were many individuals who later became famous archaeologists
or historians and close colleagues of Murras, including Duccio Bonavia,
Lus Lumbreras, Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Franklin Pease, and Mara
Rostworowski. . . . In Cusco Murra interacted with many exceptional
people including archaeologists Richard Schaedel and John Howland
Rowe, as well as prominent writer Aldous Huxley (Barnes 2010:23).
Now in Peru, Murra could continue his work with primary, unpublished
sources. He could also interact with a group of international scholars, especially with the archaeologists at San Marcos University, who were the most
influential in the country (Figure 24). Likewise, as Marisol de la Cadena
(2007) notes in regard to the intellectual climate in which Murra was now
immersed, especially the group that would found the Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos, with Mara Rostworowski at the lead (Figure 25):
Created in the early sixties, an interdisciplinary group of elite intellectuals (sociologists, anthropologists, historians, economists, etc.) [the
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos] was among the first institutions that
actively sought and received private funding. It is noteworthy that this
institute combined a legacy of indigenismo with support from the promotors of dependency theory. The privileged social position of its members along with its leftist inclinations made it an influential organization
Figure 24. Luis G. Lumbreras (left), Elas Mujica (center), and John Murra (right) at the
archaeological site of Iskanwaya, Bolivia, 1973. Courtesy of Luis Lumbreras.
96
Figure 25. From left to right: John Murra, Craig Morris, Mara Rostworowski, Javier de la
Rocha, Rafael Varon Gabai, Cecilia Blondet, and Franklin Pease. Art Museum, Lima, 1997.
Courtesy of Mariana Mould de Pease.
and central in the development of social sciences in Peru. Luis E.

Valcrcel, John Murra, Jos Matos Marall of these figures at the core of
interamerican anthropologywere members of the institute (de la
Cadena 2007:120).
Murra was associated with and welcomed by a group of intellectuals that
helped him explore and disseminate his ideas about Peru within the country
itself. Interestingly, Marisol de la Cadena describes this group as being on
the left; however, as we will see, the left was not a monolithic block in the
1960s, but was fragmented at this time (see, for example, Adrianzn 2011).
Murras Provincial Inca Life Project in Hunuco (19631965)

The Provincial Inca Life Project was an important opportunity to investigate
the Inca city of Huanuco Pampa and nearby areas of the Peruvian central
highlands. It also provided funding and logistics for different researchers doing anthropological and archaeological research. Monica Barnes describes
the beginning and the nature of the project:
97
During the late 1950s Murra had made field visits to the Hunuco area
and knew from personal observations that late period archaeological
sites of many types were abundant there, and that the great Inca
administrative center of Hunuco Pampa was well preserved. Murra
proposed an integration of several lines of evidence to create a more
advanced interpretation of Inca life. The visitas provided a list of sites
with a variety of functions. These included villages, shrines, markets,
and fortresses, as well as roads and their way-stations or tambos. In his
successful National Science Foundation application Murra expressed
the belief that it would be possible to locate and visit every place
mentioned, excavating a selection. Archaeological evidence could then
be integrated with the detailed historical accounts (Barnes 2009b:29).
To achieve the project goals, Murra brought together a number of researchers from different American and Peruvian specialties. He put himself
in charge of the ethnohistorical research, and named Donald E. Thompson
as director of the archaeological work. John L. Cotter, an archaeologist with
the US Park Service, also was in the original crew. Robert McKelvey Bird,
son of the legendary Junius Bird and a graduate student at the University
of California, was responsible for the botanical work. Peter Jenson, a Peace
Corps volunteer with experience in museums, oversaw the laboratory. The
team likewise included Gordon D. Hadden and Daniel Shea (Barnes 2010:30).
Murra also mentions in his memoirs that Craig Morris was a volunteer at
the beginning of the project (Murra 2000:115). The Peruvian archaeologists
on the project were Manuel Chvez Balln, Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Luis
Barreda Murillo, and Rogger Ravines, as well as students Csar Fonseca Martel, Emilio Mendizbal Losack, and Juan M. Ossio Acua, and the American
Freda Wolf (Barnes 2010:2930).
Barnes (2010) likewise notes:
According to the outline presented in Murras N.S.F. proposal, and
interim reports submitted, the first year of the project, to begin officially
on July 1, 1963, was devoted to survey to identify the installations mentioned by Ortiz de Ziga, including the great site of Hunuco Pampa
and fortresses noted by Ortiz but not visited by him. Of special interest
was the market town at Chinchacocha. The extent to which markets, as
opposed to other forms of state-sponsored or local exchange, functioned
in the Andes remains somewhat unclear, but Murra addressed this
issue in many of his writings, including his dissertation. In general,
Murras Hunuco-centered work has contributed a great deal to our
understanding of the economic organization of the Inca state.
98
The second year of the Hunuco Project was devoted to ethnological

work and to excavation of selected sites. The third and final year, to
end on July 1, 1966, was designated for analysis and the preparation of
manuscripts for publication including the republication, with scholarly
commentary, of Hunuco Visitas . . . (Barnes 2009b:30).
Thus, in those years Murra did both archaeological fieldwork and work
on documentary sources. His vertical archipelago model was the central
concept in all of his work. Murra (1972:42976 in Marzal 1998:359) discussed
this several years later: The simultaneous control of such vertical archipelagos was an ideal shared by ethnic groups geographically distant from
each other and very different from each other in the degree of complexity in
economic and political organization. . . . He continues:
We can say now, for example, that in a class society as the kingdom
Lupaqa, the verticality that they practiced had a range and scope not
found in the Chupaychu. Moreover, when such a territorial organization
was used by states such as Tiwanacu, Wari, and the Incas, entities that
had millions of inhabitants, the functions of the vertical islands and
the status of the colonizers would have experienced substantial political,
economic and social change that merits much more detailed study. . . . I
offer five cases of simultaneous control of floors or ecological islands,
under conditions very different between them, in an effort to detail the
advances, but also the limits, of the model. I do not suggest that the five
make up all the forms and varieties that existed (Murra 1972:430).
Thus, although we see that Murra proposed that there was an ideal or
common essence for all prehispanic societies, including some as old as the
Wari and Tiwanaku, he also understood that each was suited to the political
and economic contexts of the historical moment for which he proposed a series of cases. He understood that these needed to be studied more intensively
to know the limits of the model. His proposals about vertical archipelagos
generated a long debate well after his initial publications.
As mentioned in this chapter, one of Murras colleagues was the archaeologist Craig Morris, who had studied with Robert M. Adams at the
University of Chicago (Marcus 2007). Adams had worked in Mesopotamia
and was also influenced by Gordon Childe (Adams [1960] 1979), whom he
had met in London in 1956 (Smith 2009:14).5 This influence was passed on to
his students at the University of Chicago, who were reading Childes work in
the early 1960s (Smith 2009:14). Morris was probably one of those students
who read Childe through Adams; as such, this probably was a factor in his
99
decision to work on urbanism. In fact, both Childe and Adams are cited in
Morris articles about Hunuco Pampa (Morris 1973, 1980, 1985), providing
some insight into his theoretical leanings. From his numerous publications,
it is clear that throughout his career, Morris developed a research program
focused on the archaeology of Inca political and economic organization (see
Marcus 2007; Morris 1967, 1972, 1982; Morris and Thompson 1985).
One can also appreciate that the other great influence on Morris was
North American theory based initially on economic anthropology and its
methods, in particular the substantivist position of John Murra and his
students (Tantalen 2010b). It was within this theoretical framework that
Morris sought to understand the development of Andean cities, particularly
those of the Inca. Furthermore, his long stays in Peru permitted him to understand modern society and the differences that had developed over the
centuries, if not millennia.
It is worth remembering that Murra was supported by the Universidad
de Hunuco through the assistance of a Peruvian congressman (Carlos Showing Ferrari) and the Institute of Andean Research. With this help, he started
excavations under the broad permit of cleaning and conservation (limpieza
y consolidacin) the site (Murra and Hadden 1966). In reality, the excavations
were substantial; Murra and his team reconstructed many of the large walls
and installed new streets and access routes, which we now consider enhancements to the visitor experience at Hunuco Pampa. He also initiated a
series of projects to reconstruct the ushnu and other buildings at the site.
Murra, Arguedas, and Lo Andino

According to Alberto Flores Galindo (Aguirre and Ruiz 2011:194), the intellectual environment in Peru at the end of the 1920s was related to the search for
the indigenous element in Peruvian society just when Augusto B. Legua was
overthrown by Snchez Cerro, a right-wing politician. For Flores Galindo,
this scenario was newly ruptured by two opposing currents that began
to emerge in Peru in the late sixties and early seventies. The first was
one preoccupied with the indigenous contribution to Andean life and
the contribution of the campesino to Peruvian history, spurred initially
by two foreign historians: a Romanian-American, John V. Murra, and a
Dutchman, Tom Zuidema. But the contribution of these two historians
ultimately ended up being adopted by conservative anthropologists or
historians who came to understand Andean reality [Lo Andino] as a sort
of timeless permanence that decouples the problems of Andean history
100
from the problems of modern campesinos living in Peru. . . . The other

current that challenged the traditional narrative was Marxism, that
would reappear, although perhaps a bit too feudal in nature and being
sufficiently generic that it came to obscure the specifics of Peruvian
historical evolution: this was dependency theory (Aguirre and Ruiz
2011:194).
There is no doubt that Murra contributed to this concept of Lo Andino
with his explanation of the Andean economic forms, such as the model of
vertical archipelagos, or economic complementarity. Lo Andino fostered a
long debate in anthropology and archaeology from the 1960s onwards.
Moreover, this debate went beyond these two disciplines and became a conflict in the broader social sciences ( for example, see Ossio 2006; Starn 1991).
Furthermore, this debate pitted various factions within Peruvian and foreign
intellectual circles against each other. Beyond this historical particularism
was also the idea that the Andes were unique, a social reality in which many
of the universal features of humanity, particularly economic, did not exist,
the most notable example being the supposed lack of markets. This later became a proposal in which Andean culture and identity are conceived as a set
of social practices and mindsets that have persisted for almost 500 years under Western domination and survive today in ways similar to those of preColumbian times (Paerregaard 2000:69). Thus, Lo Andino contributed to
the essentialist notions in Andean life among various social scientific theories. Many researchers (de la Cadena 2007:119; Salazar-Soler 2007:166) note
that the concept of Lo Andino was inserted into the indigenismo traditions
that developed in Peru in the early twentieth century, as has been described
earlier in this book.
The emerging concept of Lo Andino also became part of a wider intellectual movement that created a romantic and even utopian view of the
Andean world. One of Perus great anthropologistsJos Mara Arguedas, a
former student of and collaborator with Luis Valcrcelwas thrust into this
debate (Valcrcel 1981:3717). Arguedas was the director of the Perus Casa
de Cultura when the Provincial Inca Life Project was under way at Huanuco
Pampa, and he became friends with Murra (see Murra 1983). Both intellectuals shared a vision that clearly differentiated the Andean world economy
from that of the Western world. For example, Osmar Gonzles (2011), who
contrasts the indianist vision with the indigenismo6 vision held by Arguedas, writes
The descriptions that Arguedas offered in his work constituted valuable
hypotheses that were later used by social research. Up to that time, the
101
dominant narrative was one of a monotonal Indian: stable, gregarious

and always kind. Like sweet and innocent children, they were therefore
ultimately manipulable. Arguedas vision is completely different. Here
the Indians are human beings with both good and bad sides. They are
normal. This work, perhaps more so than in other literature was ahead
of its time in social studies (Gonzles 2011:744).
Arguedas analysis was therefore not only literary but had a clear political
objective, for Arguedas, like Murra, focused on the economic conditions of
the indigenous peoples. As De Munter (2010) indicates: According to Arguedas, this economic axis in western culture was and is commercial and individualistic; in ancient Peru, it is collective and religious (Arguedas 1975:252)
(De Munter 2010:249).
Meanwhile, Marisol de la Cadena discusses Lo Andino and its main promoters:
In an interview with Jos Mara Arguedas, Murra popularized the term
lo andino, a notion that quickly became part of the Peruvian indigenous
network. In the following years this notion encouraged an interesting
controversy in the United States, spurred by accusations of political
blindness against Andeanists by the anthropologist Orin Starn, for
missing the revolution organized by activists in Sendero Luminoso,
even in communities where some of them did their field work. . . .
Arguedas was identified as the originator of lo andino, a discredited
notion among many intellectuals that was a simple romantic and
culturalist indigenismo (de la Cadena 2007:119).
From this perspective, the notion of Lo Andino blinded anthropologists
to the dizzying reality around them. The passive, timeless Indians could not
be revolutionaries from a Lo Andino perspective; but, in fact, they were far
from passive and indifferent.
Despite these criticisms, Arguedas work is a milestone in indigenismo
literature and anthropology in the second half of the twentieth century.
Although his work has been considered from various perspectives, many
of them very critical (Arguedas et al. 1985; Vargas Llosa 1996), it has also inspired a number of intellectuals, namely Hugo Blanco (Gilly 2012:73), who led
a peasant movement to take back land in the La Convencin Valley in Cusco
in 1962.
Returning to Murras ideas, Enrique Mayer (2013) argues that
Verticality propelled Murra to an unprecedented level of international
fame and prestige. It latched on to then-fashionable cultural ecology
102
arguments, and further bolstered the fascination of the possibility that

exotic civilizations could thrive without markets. It was the reiteration
of Karl Polanyis anti-market position that had in those years a certain
populist echo that Murra was part of and deftly exploited (Mayer
2013:310).
Murras antiuniversalist approach to Andean society made it more exotic
and appealing to study. As Mayer notes, after his first pronouncements, Murra
fought for this Lo Andino vision, even going beyond the evidence, which
eventually weakened his model. His ideas had political support in a climate
where social problems were once again relevant in the national discussion,
particularly questions about the reality of life in the sierra. Leftist intellectuals and political parties reemerged in spite of the oppression, especially in
Lima. Murras views that the indigenous, both prehistoric and historic, were
relevant to modern political discussion arrived at precisely the right moment. This all took place while a revolutionary military government put in
place a series of reforms in which the Indian was the central figure used to
justify the military control of the government.
Conclusion
John Murra was one of the most prominent anthropologists in the study of
Andean societies in the second half of the twentieth century. His concept
of the vertical archipelago generated a great ethnohistoric tradition in the
social sciences, especially in archaeology. His particularist, antiuniversalist
views echoed with a generation and highlighted the precapitalist condition
of indigenous peoples. This was all done during the Cold War, consistent
with the substantivist economic anthropological theory of Karl Polanyi and
his followers, who dismissed the existence of markets and instead focused
on reciprocity and redistribution in the economy.
In a social environment such as Perus in the second half of the twentieth
century, where on one hand indigenous groups were marginalized and exploited, and on the other hand there was a growing insurgency in the form
of indigenous political movements, Murras proposals resonated with the
Peruvian left. With the coming of the military junta, he found his ideas fell
squarely in the center of Peruvian political and social life.
Chapter 8
Archaeology as Social Science:

From Gordon Childe to Luis Lumbreras
s we saw in chapter 4, early leftist views among intellectuals interested in archaeology and the indigenismo movement were consistent with those of the young Luis E. Valcrcel. A later period in the
history of Peruvian archaeology (which I have defined previously [Tantalen
2006]) is the link with Marxist thought, which was in part a product of the
work of Emilio Choy Ma. To understand its academic marginality (Macera
1979), we delve into what has been called the cultural historical/neoevolutionary phenomenon, which would come to dominate successive governments from roughly 1940 to 1968.
As discussed earlier, North American archaeologists came to Peru in the
1940s in a systematic manner with support from various governmental and
nongovernmental agencies. These archaeologists were largely in the cultural
historical camp. This theory, although well developed in the United States
and Europe, had only recently been introduced to Peru by Tello. A second
group of North American archaeologists began to introduce neoevolutionary theory (principally developed by Julian Steward and his students) in the
1950s, filling the vacuum left by Tellos death in 1947 (Burger 1989:38; Morales
1993:22) and the subsequent abandonment of the diffussionist thesis surrounding the mother culture concept of Chavn.
Much of the archaeological theory in Peru during this time was articulated through this hegemonic, foreign influence. Emilio Choy Ma, son of Chinese immigrants, was one researcher who resisted this influence.
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 103115. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc.
All rights reserved.
103
104
Emilio Choy and an Alternative

Framework for Peruvian Archaeology
Emilio Choy was born in Callao (Figure 26). He owned a profitable business;
according to Luis Lumbreras (personal communication, June 2011), he had
a chauffeur named Huamn, a proletarian poet in the May 1st movement,
known by many people in Limas intellectual circles. Most notably, perhaps,
the celebrated Jos Mara Arguedas was also part of Choys social network.
Choy was a self-taught Marxist who brought a historical materialist
analysis to Andean prehistory. He was particularly influenced by Gordon Childes emphasis on cultural evolution coupled with revolution
as the means of cultural change. Inspired by Childe and guided by his
Marxist background, Choy looked at class conflict in the prehispanic
world, going beyond the romantic vision of indigenismo to highlight the
development of a universal socialism. For him, prehispanic Andean
societies emerged from egalitarian tribal social structures, evolving to
hierarchies characterized by a social class structure.
Emilio Choy wrote his first Marxist article in 1955, but his primary work
from this perspective was The Neolithic Revolution and the Origins of American Civilization, presented during the Week of Peruvian Archaeology in
1959 at San Marcos University. The edited book Ancient Peru, Space and Time
was published in 1960 as a collection of papers from this symposium.
Although Choys academic production was sporadic, it extended from
1945 to 1972. San Marcos University published a collection of his work toward
the end of his career (Choy Ma [1960]
1979) illustrating his interest in different
periods of Andean history and, above all,
demonstrating a theoretical position
quite consistent throughout his intellectual life. Choy maintained a fairly rigid
scheme of the evolution of societies, using the modes of production outlined by
Karl Marx in his early writings, mainly
Precapitalist Economic Formations (Marx
and Hobsbawm 1971). His work also introduced Childes theories into Peruvian archaeology (Macera 1974 in Baquerizo
1974:xv), which he used as a theoretical
Figure 26. Emilio Choy Ma.
Archaeology as Social Science
105
Figure 27. Archaeology graduation ceremony, San Marcos University, 1974. From left to right:
Daniel Morales, Ramiro Matos, Lucy Salazar, Rosa Fung, Mara Mendoza, and Emilio Choy
Ma. Courtesy of John Rick.
reference for discoveries in Andean archaeology. In particular, Childes Man

Makes Himself (Childe [1936] 1996), where he first proposed the idea of revolutions in the evolution of human culture, influenced Choys research; he
saw similar trajectories in the prehispanic Andes. Choy also recognized (as
Engels had in the nineteenth century) the role of labor as a major element in
cultural and biological evolution in his essay in Labor and the Origin of American Man (Choy [1961] 1979).
Choy taught at San Marcos University (Figure 27). His followers describe
his time there as more an informal style of teaching rather than rigorously
academic (e.g., see Macera and Basadre 1974, or Baquerizo 1974). He certainly
helped promote a Marxist perspective among a generation of students in
Peruvian archaeology, notably Luis Lumbreras.
The Military Government of Juan Velasco Alvarado

Peru in the 1960s was a time of leftist ideological revival (Liss 1984:139),
including factions of apra that radicalized into the mir (Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria) and elements of the Communist Party that created
the eln (Ejrcito de Liberacin Nacional) (Bjar 1973; Pease 1995:23940).
Likewise, there emerged an official ideology with leftist or populist leanings
106
that (ironically) was promoted by the military government of Velasco Alvarado

(19681975). This provided a social framework that fostered alternative
archaeological practice in Peru. The case of Peru in the late 1970s is unique
since this military dictatorship adopted a form of state socialism (Politis
1995:215), creating a favorable environment for Peruvian archaeologists
such as Luis Lumbreras (Navarrete 2006). Simultaneously, North American
archaeologists encountered difficulties in their research at this time (Burger
1989:42).
The ascendance of military leadership was a reaction to the inefficient
governments that permitted North American businesses and their allied
Peruvian elite to dominate the economy and to exploit the peasant and
working class. On October 3, 1968, general Juan Velasco Alvarado, president
of the military junta, announced his revolutionary plans. As he said, We are
not Marxists, but we are making a revolution (Moreira 1975:9). This military coup, for the first time in Peruvian history, was independent from the
economic elites and therefore acted with unparalleled freedom. Thus, there
would be no subordination of the Peruvian economy to foreign centers of
decision, where actions originate which fundamentally affect the economic
life of the nation and prevent an autonomous development process geared to
the achievement of national objectives (Skidmore and Smith 2005:209). As
a result, the government responded favorably to the cause of the campesinos.
One of the outcomes was the Agrarian Reform that haltingly began during
the government of Belande (Pease 1999:232), which appropriated the large
haciendas and gave them to campesino agricultural cooperatives.
Yet, while this reform improved the conditions for the peasants and
workers, it never pushed Peru toward any kind of socialism. On the contrary,
it reduced class conflict that had taken a violent turn and inserted the state
as a mediator of these conflicts. The Peruvian regime at this time could be
considered a typical corporate state (Skidmore and Smith 2005:210). Another success of this new regime was the nationalization or expropriation
of strategic productive sectors, such as mining and oil (Skidmore and Smith
2005:211). Although these actions aroused the hostility of the United States,
the Peruvian government eventually compensated these companies.
In spite of this, the populist pretensions of the military government soon
faded. Discontent grew quickly and was coupled with a new economic crisis
by 1975 (Bardella 1989:501; Deniz 1978:10). Moreover, Velasco had health problems. All of this led to the failure of the military government experiment. As
Alberto Flores Galindo (1999) notes: In spite of all the reforms of the government, they did not change the institutional structure by which decisions
were made. Even when the military took action against underdevelopment
107
and with an avowedly anti-imperialist policy, the special forces counterinsurgency training remained the same, the manuals continued as before the
internal hierarchies continued and paradoxically the officials . . . acquired
certain aristocratic features (Flores Galindo 1999:10).
In 1975, the military junta replaced Velasco with General Francisco Morales
Bermdez, an institutionalist military leader (Mauceri 1989:15) from an
aristrocratic family in Lima. Morales Bermdez carried out the systematic
dismantling of his predecessors work. The pressures of the International
Monetary Fund (imf) required the government to make sharp adjustments
that led to new problems in the Peruvian economy, forcing Morales Bermdez to reopen the doors to foreign investment and grant large concessions
(Deniz 1978:12). Finally, Morales Bermdez called the Constituent Assembly
of 1978 to make the transition to democracy, presided over by the Aprista
Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre. It was in this context that the archaeologist
Luis Lumbreras emerged in tandem with what is known as Latin American
social archaeology (Fernndez Martnez 2005; Patterson 1994; Politis
2006:171).
Latin American Social Archaeology

Latin American social archaeology has been described as a monolithic
theoretical current carried out by government patronage (Tantalen 2004).
Historical circumstances such as the Peruvian juntas, the ascendance of
leftist governments in Mexico, the Cuban communist revolution, and the
mix of military dictatorships and leftist political parties in countries such as
Venezuela provided the context for the development of Marxist archaeology.
After the successful Cuban revolution and the Communist Partys takeover of the government, it did not take long for that government to intervene
in archaeological interpretation. For example, the Cuban archaeologist
Ernesto Tabo published The Prehistory of Cuba in 1966 (Politis 1995:219), in
which he introduced a Soviet archaeological analytical framework. Many
Latin American students ( for example in Peru, where Tabo conducted excavations) assimilated his historical materialist ideas (Aguirre-Morales 2005;
Navarrete 2006; Oyuela-Caycedo et al. 1997:366).
Marxist archaeology in Latin America emerged in 1974, when Lumbreras
published Archaeology as a Social Science (Politis 1995:219). This represented
an alternative discourse to that of the foreign archaeologists and their supporters. As a consequence, this brought about a series of meetings that led
to the foundation of Latin American social archaeology. The first of these
108
Figure 28. International Congress of Americanists at Lima, 1970. From left to right: Carlos
Ponce Sangins, Mario Sanoja, Lautaro Nuez, Luis G. Lumbreras, and Jos Luis Lorenzo.
Courtesy of Luis G. Lumbreras.
meetings, the Reunin de Teotihuacn in 1975 (Lorenzo 1976), sought to

establish the general lines of action for a historical materialist perspective
that each of the participants could develop in their own countries. A second
meeting at the xl Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (a symposium
called Aboriginal Formations in America) was held in Lima, Peru, in 1970
(Patterson 1994:533) (Figure 28). After these early attempts, there was a
meeting of the Oaxtepec Group (Grupo de Oaxtepec) in 1983, comprising Luis
Lumbreras, Manuel Gndara, Mario Sanoja, Marcio Veloz, Iraida Vargas, and
Luis Felipe Bate (Politis 1995:220). Navarrete (2006) defines this period as
one of theoretical refinement (Refinamiento Terico).
The social archaeologists also adopted a critical stance towards the
French structuralist materialism (as espoused by Althusser and Godelier) so
popular in these years, principally because this school argued for a fixed
division in the society under study (social totality) between the economic
base and the superstructure. Paradoxically, much of the cultural historical,
evolutionist, and structural Marxist theories worked thier way into the social
archaeological discourse (Lumbreras 1974b:24). Lumbreras, of course, worked
in the leftist community, an important historical note discussed in the next
section. This movement was clearly situated as a political activity and as
such created a clear opposition to the Anglo-Saxon positivism of the time.
109
Luis Lumbreras and Peruvian Social Archaeology

As many researchers have pointed out, Lumbreras is undoubtedly one of the
most influential Peruvian archaeologists of the second half of the twentieth
century (Schaedel and Shimada 1982:363; Shimada and Vega Centeno 2011).
He was born on July 29, 1936, in the city of Huamanga in the department of
Ayacucho in the central highlands of the Peruvian Andes. He came from a
middle-class family, the son of a renowned lawyer and former deputy from
the Huamanga Province of Ayacucho. His mother was a famous professor
of mathematics (Fujita 2010), his brother was a prominent doctor, and his
sister a renowned mathematician. Despite his class, Lumbreras was moved
by the social injustice around him, an almost feudal reality for the people in
his hometown.
After an unremarkable childhood, Lumbreras went to Lima to study. His
primary education was in a religious school called La Recoleta in the center
of Lima. In 1951, he continued his education at the Antonio Raimondi secondary school on Avenida Arequipa. Although this was a school to which the
Peruvian middle classes sent their children, Lumbreras lived in the workingclass district of Lince, a few blocks from the school. His passion for Perus
ancient past led him and his companions in the high school to start the
Crculo de Estudios Antonio Raimondi, which was dedicated to sponsoring
talks, historical research, and conferences to the public on historical and
archaeological themes. Lumbreras also studied the schools Raimondi collection of artifacts, as well as Tellos: the renowned archaeologist had taught
at the school in the last decade of his life because of financial problems.1
Emilio Choy attended one of these conferences in 1953 and thus started
a long friendship and professional partnership with Lumbreras, introducing
the younger student to his Marxist writings. Choy also joined Lumbreras
in a circle of intellectuals in Lince that discussed history and politics, and
shared an interest in the origin of Andean Man. The following year, building
on Choys theories, Lumbreras published a small article in the newspaper
La Prensa on the indigenous origins of American Man (which was also
evidently influenced by Louis Agassiz) while still a high-school student. At
this time, Choy introduced Lumbreras to Mao Tse Tungs essay On Contradiction, which Choy was studying to understand the revolutionary process
in China. In this same year, Choy loaned Lumbreras Childes book What
Happened in History? These influences inspired Choy to write The Neolithic
Revolution in the Andes, which is considered a response to Jos Luis Lorenzos
The Neolithic Revolution in Mesoamrica. Clearly, Childes books impressed
the young Lumbreras, as they did so many leftist intellectuals (Marcos 2007).
110
Lumbreras was admitted to San Marcos University in 1955, earning his

Bachelor of Arts and Humanities in 1959. Later, in 1960, he obtained the
degree of Doctor of Arts with a major in archaeology and ethnology. At
this time, the university faculty included Ral Porras Barrenechea, Luis E.
Valcrcel, Jorge C. Muelle, Jos Matos Mar, and visiting professors such as
John Murra, John Rowe, and Juan Comas as well as their disciples Rosa
Fung, Ramiro Matos, Isabel Flores, and Duccio Bonavia, among others. This
distinguished group of scholars, along with Lumbreras, constituted the first
generation of professional anthropological archaeologists in Peru. Lumbreras also helped a number of field researchers, especially foreigners. This gave
him a good overview of the archaeological remains in Peru, later synthesized
in his celebrated books.
In 1959, the Universidad San Cristbal de Huamanga in Ayacucho was
reopened (Degregori [1990] 2011:41) with a celebrated inaugural faculty
headed by none other than Luis E. Valcrcel that included luminaries such
as Jorge Basadre and Jos Mara Arguedas. The following year, after completing his doctorate, Lumbreras began his teaching career at San Cristbal
de Huamanga. There he met Csar Guardia Mayorga and found those who
systematically studied Marxism (Lumbreras, personal communication,
2011), providing a major influence on Lumbrerass political and philosophical
formation. Here, his thinking matured thanks to his reimmersion in the social and political reality of Ayacucho, one of the poorest areas of the country.
At San Cristbal de Huamanga, he not only moved in the intellectual circles
of the university, but also in the countryside, where he engaged directly in
political action.
Lumbreras also worked at the famous site of Wari. Significantly, one of his
main contributions to Peruvian archaeology is his theory that Wari (ca. ad
6001000) was an empire (Chirinos 2006:34) with its capital near the city of
Huamanga (see, for example, Lumbreras 1980), where Tello ([1939] 1942:682)
also had previously worked, offering a diffusionist argument (Betalleluz
2003:223; Jennings 2006:267). Moreover, even if Lumbreras proposal was at
odds with the diffusionist thesis of Carlos Ponce Sangins about Tiwanaku
(Angelo 2005), we see that the idea of a Wari empire in Peruvian territory
had much to do with the claim that the site was an important center of early
civilization during the Middle Horizon.
In 1966, Lumbreras went back to Lima and began to teach at various
universities, including San Marcos University, and began his excavations
at Chavn. He focused on the Old Temple area known as The Gallery of Offerings, and his research reports are permeated with fundamental Marxist
ontology and epistemology (Lumbreras 1993; especially pp. 94100). We also
111
see here the theoretical-methodological category that he created and called

a socially significant archaeological unit, which is a historical fact based
upon archaeological remains.
Lumbreras also published De los Pueblos, las Culturas y las Artes en el
Antiguo Per (1969, 1974c) based upon his doctoral thesis and his class notes
from Huamanga. This classic of Andean archaeology noted the influence of
positivism and cultural studies in his academic formation at San Marcos
University. Here, he offered his framework against John Rowes historical periods, proposing evolutionary stages in the development of Andean society
in contrast to Rowes art-historical and diffusionist framework. Lumbreras
continued to implicitly use some of the diffusionist assumptions present in
the literature, and would later criticize himself on this issue. In spite of this,
his book was a rare example of an archaeological synthesis by a Peruvian
scholar that was translated into English (Lumbreras 1974c), and constituted
one of the most influential texts in North American archaeology.
With his return to Lima as a professor at his alma mater, Lumbreras
conducted the majority of his work during Velascos military government
(19681975), under which he was offered an excellent opportunity to develop
his most important archaeological research (Oyuela-Caycedo et al. 1997:367;
Politis 1995:215). As the North American archaeologists Richard Schaedel and
Izumi Shimada point out, Lumbreras assumed the role of Tello in defining
broad trends and priorities in Andean prehistory (1982:363). In fact, Lumbreras, following in Tellos footsteps, became director of the Museo de Arqueologa of San Marcos University between 1967 and 1972 (Boletn 1999) (Figure
29) and later, from 1973, directed the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa.2 These
posts were highly visible and powerful forums that cemented his position as
the principal authority in Andean archaeology.
As we saw, in 1970 Lumbreras organized the symposium Formaciones
Autctonas en Amrica (Indigenous Social Formations in the Americas)
as part of the xl Congreso Internacional de Americanistas in Lima (Patterson
1994:533) (Figure 26), which clearly demonstrated his desire to bring together
Latin American leftist intellectuals. His Marxism is also quite evident in his
work in the 1970s. He taught a course at the Universidad de Concepcin,
Chile, called Arqueologa y Sociedad (Archaeology and Society), where he
synthesized the data for his most popular theoretical book, La Arqueologa
como Ciencia Social (1974b). This book reflected a real shift from his previous
work.3 Likewise, Lumbreras himself (2005) reflected on his early work, which
does not need repeating at any great length. What is clear is that Lumbreras
internalized the method and theory of historical materialism and adopted
the dialectic perspective concerning social reality and its representations.
112
Figure 29. San Marcos Universitys Museum of Archaeology inauguration, 1969. From left to
right: Luis E. Valcrcel, Juan de Dios Guevara (Rector of the University), Jorge C. Muelle, Luis
G. Lumbreras, and Antonio Cornejo Polar. Courtesy of Luis G. Lumbreras.
Nevertheless, the methodology to apply this in practice is still a missing element in this book, perhaps because it was a preliminary statement and a
very new and radical way of perceiving social materiality. Or, as at least one
author has suggested (Navarrete 2006), he sought to convert this into a popular discourse and to construct a revolutionary political program.
This book was a major factor that prompted Jos Luis Lorenzo to organize the Reunin de Teotihuacn in 1975 (Lorenzo 1976), an event that promoted this theoretical and political perspective. As mentioned earlier, the
organizers hoped that each of the participants would bring this perspective
back to their home country.
In this sense, Lumbreras political and theoretical views became more
visible and influential with his return to Lima and with his enhanced position at San Marcos University. For instance, in the year 2000, one of his books
was selected as one of the 50 books that every cultured Peruvian should
read. This book, De los Orgenes del Estado, was published in 1972 as a gift to
his son, and as a result was written for a popular audience (Lumbreras 2010).
With this work, Lumbreras clearly moved the (pre)history of the Central
Andes as a class struggle into a classic Marxist paradigm.
113
Following several international meetings, such as the Reunin de

Teotihuacn and others (see Navarrete 2006), particularly the meeting in
Paracas supported by unesco, this regional proposal was consolidated
for South America, as seen in Lumbreras book Arqueologa de la Amrica
Andina (Lumbreras 1981b). It was here that he suggested his cultural historical areas in this part of the American continent, an approach that affects
archaeology in the Andes to this day.
Since the 1970s, under the auspices of Velascos military government,
Lumbreras had been working within the structure of the state, specifically
in cultural matters. Lumbreras served as the organizer of the Departamento
de Monumentos Arqueolgicos del Instituto Nacional de Cultura between
1973 and 1979 and served as director of the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa
of Peru.
During the 1980s, he worked at San Marcos University as well as on other
projects, such as the Proyecto Arqueolgico e Histrico Chincha y Pisco,
which began in 1984 in a coastal valley located 125 miles south city of Lima
(Lumbreras 2001). This research was conducted with Craig Morris, then Curator of South America at the American Museum of Natural History (Morris
1988), and was platform from which members of the Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueolgicos (indea) were able to conduct their work within a historical materialist perspective (Alcalde et al. 2001; Canziani 1992). Such work
included excavations at the site of Chococota near El Carmen, in the Chincha
Valley, in 1985 and 1987. The site comprises three platform mounds and a residential area dating to the Paracas period (ca. 800100 bc) on the south coast,
and is related to Tellos discoveries in the 1920s. Many of Lumbreras colleagues and students participated in this work, including Jos Canziani,
Hernn Carrillo, Denise Pozzi-Escot, Muriel Pozzi-Escot, Juan Tello, Diego
Guevara, Marcela Ros, Leonid Velarde, Javier Alcalde, Carlos del guila, Fernando Fujita, Augusto Escrcena, Elizabeth Isla, and Pablo de la Veracruz,
among others. It was in this period that Lumbreras published a series of articles in the journal Gaceta Arqueolgica Andina, where he worked out in a
consistent manner his initial proposal first published in 1974 (see various examples in Lumbreras 2005). Finally, in 1989, he was named Professor Emeritus at San Marcos University.
From 1990 to 1999, Lumbreras and Marcela Ros conducted a lecture tour
of Europe, giving classes at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in 1991
and the Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona in Spain from 1991 to 1994, and
spending some time in Germany between 1995 and 1996 working on theoretical issues, particularly the development of the state. Finally, in 1996 he
returned to South America, staying four years in Brazil and working on the
114
Instituto Experimental de Investigacin de Campos dos Gaitacases in Rio de

Janeiro. He returned to Peru at the end of 1999. Upon his return, he took over
the directorship of the Instituto Nacional de Cultura and supported Peruvian
archaeology with such emblematic projects as the Programa Qhapaq an
with the goal of declaring the entire Inca road system as world cultural patrimony.
Lumbreras today, free from government and university bureaucracies
and obligations, is still quite active, organizing museums, publishing, and
lecturing on his Marxist framework, which provides a holistic and comprehensive view of the prehispanic and contemporary Andean world. More
important, perhaps, is that he continues to support young researchers and
his colleagues, viewing archaeology not only as a science but as a social justice activity.
Conclusion
Although Latin American social archaeology, especially Peruvian archaeology, is a common theme among the archaeologists who are dedicated to the
history of archaeology, especially in Latin America, the issue of how to put
it into practice is still an understudied component of this paradigm. This is
due to the fact that this is still a nascent enterprise, or as one Latin American
author (Navarrete 2006) has suggested, because it aspires to become a form
of popular discourse building a revolutionary political program.
Lumbreras developed an archaeology created by Peruvians based upon
an anticolonialist critique of North American influence. Paradoxically, the
postulates of this work resulted in a contradiction between discourse and
practice, evident perhaps in the evolutionary logic underlying the culturalhistorical categories in the writings of various Marxist authors (see especially
Lumbreras 1974b). Nevertheless, we must recognize that Lumbreras emerged
as the most important synthesizer of Peruvian archaeology of the time. This
is made even more evident by the fact that his work was published in other
languages.
As I state elsewhere (Tantalen 2004), the theme of archaeology as a
social science was restricted to alternative rhetorical and hegemonic discourses related to capitalism, but it had minimal effect on the society that
it was supposed to help4 (Benavides 2005:10; Valdez 2004:131). Another factor (see Politis 2006:171), especially for Peru (Bonavia and Matos 1992:217),
that explains the debacle in social archaeology is the persecution from
governmental authorities in the 1980s and 1990s.5 In fact, the traditional
autonomy of San Marcos University in Lima won in Crdoba, Argentina, in
115
1918 (McGuire and Navarrete 1999:187) was ended by a military intervention

in 1992 during the government of Alberto Fujimori (Comisin de la Verdad y
Reconciliacin 2004; Palacios 2006:280). The Fujimori government named
authorities and modified the curriculum, removing Marxist material. In effect, it was not just a physical persecution, but an intellectual one as well.
Several years later, Lumbreras found a new place in the old state structure. From 2001 to 2006, from his position as the principal authority charged
with protecting Peruvian patrimony as head of the Instituto Nacional de
Cultura, he promoted cultural projects about the world of the past in our
present (Gaceta Cultural del Per 2004:1417). From this position, he also
oversaw the construction of a monumental site museum at Chavn (Gaceta
Cultural del Per 2005:1819). As previously stated, Chavns relevance, apart
from its intrinsic value, is that it is an icon, going back to Tello, representing
the source of Andean civilization.
Significantly, in the twenty-first century the revival of social archaeology
in Peru does not come directly from the Lumbreras but is related to classic
Marxism and other Latin American and Spanish social archaeologists ( for
example, see Aguilar 2006; Alcalde et al. 2007; de la Torre 2005; Tantalen
2008; Tantalen and Aguilar 2012), constituting an alternative for this theoretical position in Peru (Tantalen 2006).
Chapter 9
Processualist Archaeology in Peru:

Emergence and Development
Introduction
n the late 1960s, North American archaeologists inspired by the theoretical and methodological principles of processualist archaeology began
to conduct projects in Peru. Luis Lumbreras and the Marxism paradigm
were dominant in Lima, but outside the capital its impact was minor to
nonexistent because Perus provincial cities did not have solid archaeology training programs. Although there was an atmosphere of nationalism
promoted by the government, this did not translate into the establishment
of archaeological schools outside of the capital, and in some parts of Peru,
there were no archaeology programs in the local universities at all.
The larger cities had universities with some archaeologists, though one
could say that while there was a theoretical perspective that came from
Limaespecially San Marcos Universityin places like Trujillo or Arequipa,
archaeology was basically an empirical pursuit, a situation that persists to
the present day. Furthermore, because the Velasco government was increasingly weak and eventually collapsed, processual archaeology, associated
more with conservative elements in the country, became more important
(except for a slump in the 1980s that was due to some internal conflicts).
From the 1990s to the present day, it remains the dominant archaeological
current in the country. Before we study processual archaeology in any depth,
we need to look at the historical context in which it emerged in the 1960s
through the 1980s.
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen,116125. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
116
Processualist Archaeology in Peru
117
The Collapse of the Military Government and the 1980s

Velascos departure in 1975 and the resultant leadership of General Francisco
Morales Bermdez marked the end of the military-inspired social revolution.
Pressured by international financial institutions, Peru once again opened
its economy to international capital and abandoned Velascos nationalist
reforms. At the end of the decade, the government created the Constituent
Assembly to prepare for the return of democracy. As we will see, Peru at the
end of the 1980s was clearly plagued by internal civil strife that had already
gripped the capital of Lima. Jos Matos Mars (1986) excellent analysis of
Peruvian society up to the mid-1980s refers to this desborde popular, which
anticipated much of what happened in the decade. Therefore it is not surprising that the greatest political radicalization of the Peruvian public universities occurred in this decade (see also Lynch 1990 and Yalle 2008), though
one must also point out that many new students from the provinces enrolled
at San Marcos University in this period (Montoya 2005). The economic crisis
also deepened during the first government of Alan Garca, which clearly
affected all sectors of society, but especially those with lower incomes. It
was a time when many people migrated to Lima or abroad, leading to the
loss of important human capital as well as the loss of trust in the state to
solve political problems, especially economic. For San Marcos University, the
Comisin de la Verdad y la Reconciliacin (2003:634) issued this warning:
Between 1987 and 1988 the economic and social crisis will deepen. This will
have an impact on university enrollment such that in the span of a year it
falls to 26,028 students, and after this date the number of students will remain at that rate even to the end of the decade of the 90s.
Thus, the economic depression of the early 1980s promulgated a violent
social reaction that was channeled against subversive groups. This disenchantment with the government of apra and other traditional parties
generated popular discontent leading to the collapse in the mid-1990s
(Tanaka 1999:7).
It is important to note that at this time, many North American archaeological projects were funded with us or Canadian government grants,
though there was no known direct link between the funding and political
action in countries like Peru. Although during Velascos term there was a rise
in Peruvian nationalism that collided with American commercial interests,
the atmosphere started to relax as the political economy again embraced the
international system in the mid-1970s. As a result, a number of North American archaeologists were active in Peru.
In the 1980s, there was a corresponding pushback against these foreign
archaeologists, largely in the sierra, because of the actions of the Maoist
118
guerrilla group (Shining Path). They created a difficult environment for

foreign researchers of the processualist philosophy who did not share their
Marxist sentiments ( for example, the projects in Wari directed by William
Isbell in Ayacucho, that of John Rick in the punas of Junn, or that of Richard
Burger in Huaricoto in the Callejn de Huaylas). In contrast, the coast of
Peru, both northern and southern, benefitted from the migration of these
foreign teams. Yet, it was in the 1990s that processualism reestablished its
hegemony in Peru, as it did in a large part of Latin America (principally
Colombia and Argentina). Before we examine the Peruvian case, we need to
examine the nature of this original processual archaeology.
Processualism
The original processualism of the 1960s (Binford 1962) had as its objective to
explain cultural systems. In this sense, it focused beyond the individual cultures and instead sought to explain the (universal) processes of social systems
that were in turn composed of subsystems such as social, religious, psychological, ideological, technological, economic, and so forth (Clarke
[1968] 1984:88131). Culture became the extrasomatic means of adaptation
(an idea originally proposed by Leslie White in 1949) and a marker of a human ecological system (Binford 1962). Through systems theory (cybernetics), processualism understood culture as composed of different levels of
subsystems, each of which left different kinds of artifacts. The social theory
adopted by processualism was evolutionary in nature, inspired by ethnography. This neoevolutionary theory incorporated a typology of societies, such
as that of chiefdom, a category that has been criticized from within and
from outside of processualism (Yofee 2005).
Processualism in Peru was based in large part on the work of Gordon
Willey. It was seen as a methodology linked to cultural ecology and other
scientific approaches, using new methodologies to test anthropological
models (Stanish 1999). One difference with the cultural historical school is
the scientism based upon a positivist logic (Trigger 1992:282). The settlement pattern represented the past distribution of cultures, and the shifts
through time represented cultural change via underlying social processes. In
this theory, generalizations were considered one of the goals of science. In its
more extreme form, processualists sought to discover underlying laws of social process (e.g., Watson et al. 1974). In this view, the hypothetical-deductive
method guaranteed research objectivity. Soon, processual archaeology integrated sophisticated methods and techniques in the analysis of settlements,
many of which originated in the Cambridge school of paleoeconomy (Higgs
119
1975; Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970), and site catchment analysis became a
popular method to understand human-environment interactions. From
these new models and methods (such as locational geography) one could
propose doing a spatial archaeology (Clarke 1977; Hodder and Orton 1990).
Regional survey data defined these processes and the evolution of societies. The methodology was practically the same; what changed was the
method to analyze the archaeological evidence. The techniques in this case
were more sophisticated and began to incorporate multidisciplinary studies in archaeology ( for example, see Brothwell and Higgs [1969] 1980). This
broad approach was designed to study social complexity. The artifacts were
viewed as means to adapt to a physical environment just as Binford has
argued with his concepts of the technomic, sociotechnic, and ideotechnic
(Binford 1962). These three categories clearly corresponded to the three subsystems described here.
For processualists, the appearance of exotic artifacts did not indicate migrations, as they did in the earlier cultural history framework. Rather, emergent elite or leaders obtained prestige goods ( for example, see Johnson and
Earle 2000) to reinforce the social system. Processual theory interpreted
such data within a fairly clear neoliberal philosophy where the social contract, the optimization of natural resources, competition, prestige, and
status were natural motivations for the human species. In this sense, one
could see anthropological models play out in the shifts in settlement patterns. With these data, one could conduct a comparative scientific analysis
around the world, observing settlement pattern changes in the social evolution of complex societies (Stanish 1999:117).
This kind of archaeology, although developed by Binford in his influential
article in 1962, had to wait for the right conditions to flourish in Peru. At the
end of the 1970s, the cultural historical school confronted the rising neoevolutionary tide, now reinforced by Binfordian theories and assisted by the
methodologies and techniques that supported this neopositivist framework.
The rapid acceptance of processual theories, likewise, was assisted by the inability of historical materialism to consolidate as a school of thought in Peru.
This was exacerbated by the missed opportunities presented in the political
environment created by the Velasco military government(Tantalen 2004),
opportunities that could have allowed the consolidation of a Peruvian school
of archaeology centered on an historical materialist perspective.
Processual archaeology likewise was supported by eminent Peruvian
archaeologists such as Ramiro Matos, who was funded by the Smithsonian
Institution beginning in the 1960s. Here, Matos met North American archaeologists working in Mexico, such as Jeffrey Parsons (Parsons and Matos
120
Mendieta 2002:vii). Parsons had been a field assistant to the great William
Sanders, director of the Teotihuacn Valley Project (Parsons 2004:1). Matos
later worked in the central sierra of Peru with Kent Flannery, Jeffrey Parsons,
Terence DAltroy, and others. Most notable was the Upper Mantaro Archaeological Research Project (umarp), directed by Timothy Earle at ucla (Parsons and Matos Mendieta 2002:vii). umarp was one of the most explicitly
processual projects in the world at that time.
One project that produced a generation of strongly processual archaeologists was the Chan ChanValle de Moche project. This project was made
up almost exclusively of North American archaeologists, though not all of
these scholars adopted a processualist framework in their research.
The Chan ChanMoche Valley Project (19691975)

In the tradition of the Vir Project, the Chan ChanMoche Valley Project once
again brought a wave of North American archaeologists to the Peruvian north
coast. Many of these continued to work in the north coast, while others
moved to the central Andes and the south. This project was headed by
Michael Moseley of Harvard (Figure 30) and Carol Mackey, a recent graduate
of Berkeley, between 1969 and 1975 and funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society. The team was composed of
young researchers from North America or Canada, including Christopher
Donnan, Thomas Pozorski, Shelia Pozorski, John Topic, Theresa Topic, Garth
Bawden, Robert Feldman, Kent Day,
Geoffrey Conrad, Richard Keatinge,
Alan Kolata, Curtiss Brennan, and
the Frenchman Claude Chauchat,
among others.
As its name indicates, the project was focused on the Moche Valley, especially on the capital of one
of the most developed prehispanic
civilizations: Chan Chan, the capital of the Chim Empire and the
archaeological complex and capital
Figure 30. Michael Moseley at the El

Paraiso archaeological site, Lima, 1967.
Courtesy of Michael Moseley.
121
of the Moche state, including the famous Huacas de la Luna y el Sol. According to Luis Jaime Castillo (Castillo 2013), among the most important studies
were by Theresa Topic on excavations at Moche (1977), by Sheila Pozorski on
the diet and subsistence in the Moche Valley (1976), the study of the funerary contexts excavated at all of the sites published by Donnan and Mackey
(1978), and Charles Ortloff s hydraulic analysis (Ortloff et al. 1982).
Unfortunately, the team never produced a final report for the project,
except for some edited volumes that are more interpretation than data.
These volumes include Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by Michael
Moseley and Kent Day (1982); The Northern Dynasties Kingship and Statecraft
of Chimor, edited by Moseley and Cordy-Collins (1990); and Chan Chan:
Metrpoli Chim, edited by Rogger Ravines (1980). The projects field notes,
maps, and photographs are stored at the Peabody Museum Archives of Harvard University.
Two notable projects developed out of the original undertaking, one
conducted by Garth Bawden and the other by Kent Day. These projects
focused on the later Moche periods and its collapse. Bawden (1977, 1982a,
1982b) investigated the site of Galindo, a late Moche site. His interpretations
were more inspired by what we now call postprocessualism, but in essence
is a kind of structuralism tinged with historical materialism (Quilter and
Koons 2012:132) similar to the French structural Marxist tradition of Louis
Althusser. Day worked at the site of Pampa Grande, located in the neck of the
Chancay Valley in Lambayeque, with young researchers including the late
Martha Anders (1981), Izumi Shimada (1976, 1978), and Jonathan Haas (1985).
These researchers studied storage systems, agricultural zones, ceremonial
sectors, and habitation areas of the great pyramids. Unfortunately, Day never
published the results of his work. Fortunately, Izumi Shimada (1976, 1994)
published some of the results of this project (Castillo 2013).
After this pioneering project with its influential processualist theoretical
and methodological framework, I now turn our attention to the Peruvian
sierra, where another large-scale project was established in the 1970s.
Upper Mantaro Archaeological Research Project

Despite the existence of the Chan ChanMoche Valley Project, systematic
surveys in the valley of Nepea (Proulx 1982),1 and the work of Jeffrey Parsons,
Charles Hastings, and Ramiro Matos in the central sierra in 1975 and 1976
(Parsons et al. 1997:323), it was not until 1977 that processual archaeology
was firmly established in Peru. In particular, processual approaches permeated the regional research programs developed by the University of Michigan
122
Figure 31. Ondores, House of the Agrarian
Reform, 1973. From top to bottom: Michael Brown,

Deborah Pearsall, and John Rick. The wall reads
Asesinos gringos (Killer gringos). Courtesy of
John Rick.
and ucla in the Mantaro Valley (Upper

Mantaro River Valley Project, or umarp;
Figure 31), where archaeologists such as
Timothy Earle,2 Kent Flannery, Joyce Marcus, Christine Hastorf, Terence DAltroy,
Glen Russell, Jeffrey Parsons, and Bruce
Owen applied much of the method and
theory of this innovative approach, which
originated in the United States and Great
Britain (Burger 1989:43; Stanish 2001b:224).
umarp was based on the surveys conducted by Parsons and Matos in 1975
and 1976. In fact, Earle was inspired by Parsons to work in the Junn region
(Parsons and Mendieta 2002:viii).
As Richard Burger (1989:43) says: Peru was a convenient laboratory
in which the problems of general cultural evolution could be isolated and
studied.
Thus, umarp generated a significant amount of archaeological data
and established a refined chronology of the prehispanic occupations in the
area. It also provided a significant amount of ethnographic data that could
be used to build middle-range theories, as suggested by Lewis Binford. The
project participants in umarp conducted
ethnoarchaeological study of modern pottery production, but many
other contemporary cultural patterns with strong pre-Hispanic links persist in the region: for example, premonetary exchange systems, including
networks of tambos that facilitate the movement of people who transport
and redistribute goods and services between communities; agricultural
terraces that maintain high productivity without the use of chemical
fertilizers; the daily use of the traditional implements such as the chakitajlla ( foot plow) and the back-strap loom; and premodern household
cooking and fuel management systems (Parsons and Matos 2002:ix).3
umarp conducted a number of successful field seasons and worked in
the field until the Shining Path insurgency made further study untenable in
1988 (DAltroy and Hastorf 2002:xiv).
123
It is also important to note the work in the highlands of Junn, where

many American archaeologists like John Rick worked with Ramiro Matos in
Preceramic sites (Figure 31). Rick published the data from his doctoral thesis,
Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes (Rick 1980), out of this work, which was
overtly processualist; Rick was Binfords student at Michigan.
The Programa Contisuyu

Founded in Moquegua in 1982 by Michael Moseley, Luis Watanabe, and Fernando Cabieses, Programa Contisuyu, financed principally by the Southern
Peru Copper Corporation, was the institutional framework for a number of
North American and Peruvian archaeologists, who developed a systematic
and diachronic study of this coastal valley. The first phase of the research
included regional surveys, which were not intensive and systematic. Instead,
these surveys were designed to assess the nature of archaeological materials
in the region but also were designed in a processualist manner to define adaptations to the coastal environment (Rice and Ruhl 1989). Charles Stanish,
who was an early member of Programa Contisuyu and one of the most prolific self-defined processualists in the Andes (see Stanish 2003), conducted
regional surveys to assess the evolution of complex societies in the altiplano
(Stanish et al. 1997).
Clearly, the 1980s was the golden age of Programa Contisuyu for a number of reasons, not least of which was because Moquegua was a peaceful city
without any real threat from the rebels, who focused largely in the highlands.
The book series titled Trabajos Arqueolgicos en Moquegua, Per (Watanabe
et al. 1990), and the recent festschrift for Moseley (Marcus and Williams
2009) are only two publications of the very large quantity of research conducted by Programa Contisuyu.
The Programa Contisuyu continued to support research by North American and Peruvian archaeologists. Likewise, a number of colleagues from
the Universidad Catlica de Santa Mara de Arequipa worked on projects in
Moquegua, and other archaeology students from San Marcos University and
Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per (pucp) also were incorporated into
some of their research. In 1995, the Moqueguan archaeologist Bertha Vargas,
loosely affiliated with the Programa Contisuyu, at the request of Bruce Owen,
offered students from San Marcos University (including myself), the pucp
in Lima, and the Catlica in Arequipa the opportunity to conduct their preprofessional practicum at the famous site of Chen Chen in Moquegua. Chen
Chen is a Tiwanaku iv and v site located directly above the town of Moquegua. The existence of this Tiwanaku colony near the large Tiwanaku site
124
of Omo represents an example of altiplano peoples exploiting lowland territories in a very different ecological zone, data that supported John Murras
model of zonal complementarity.
The 1995 season at Chen Chen continued basic research on the site, but
also was intended to recover tomb lots in the massive cemetery at the settlement. These tombs had been known since the 1950s thanks to the work of
the Japanese mission led by Eiichiro Ishida (see Ishida 1960). The project
was an emergency rescue as well: there were plans to build the large Pasto
Grande Canal, which would lead to the imminent expansion of the town of
Moquegua. Even in the 1990s there was a pueblo joven above the city center
expanding toward the site. Today, most of the site has been covered by modern housing or has been destroyed. There is no question that the Programa
Contisuyu rescued the prehistory of this area in the valley; without this team,
these data would have been permanently lost.
Programa Contisuyu also worked to create the Museo Arqueolgico
Regional, thanks initially to the financial support of the Southern Peru Copper Corporation and donors from Lima. This facility continues to support
research to the present day.
Conclusion
Since its arrival in Peru at the end of the 1970s, processualist archaeology
generated great changes in the method and theory of how research was conducted in the country. It was explicitly more scientific, based upon neopositivist assumptions, methods, and techniques. More processualist projects
were conducted in the 1980s, above all in the areas of the country that were
not affected by the conflict between Sendero Luminoso and the military,
particularly on the coast and in the Aymara-speaking areas of the Peruvian
altiplano. Projects included the survey in the Santa Valley by David Wilson
(1988), research by Richard Burger and Lucy Burger-Salazar in the Lurn Valley (Burger and Burger-Salazar 1991), and the Programa Collasuyu (using the
model of Programa Contisuyu) in Puno.4
Many Peruvian archaeologists worked with North American archaeologists from the 1940s up to the 1970s. In the 1970s and 1980s there was considerable knowledge transfer, with Peruvian students learning processual
method and theory, logic, andmost importantthe concepts and philosophical assumptions of this neopositivist approach. Nevertheless, most
Peruvian archaeologists continued to work in the cultural historical school,
essentially creating a hybrid approach that mixed the cultural historical
with the processual. Some archaeologists were more committed to these
125
projects, such as Ramiro Matos, who worked directly with foreign projects in
the central Andes. As Peter Kaulicke (2011) recalls about the 1970s, although
processualism had already started in the Andes, and results were being published in foreign venues, at the local level the archaeologists at San Marcos
University continued to pursue a national archaeology:
On one side was San Marcos archaeology, the undisputed national center
of archaeology dominated by specialists of international reputation as
Lumbreras, Matos and Fung that attracted the attention of almost all
foreigners interested in Perus pre-Hispanic past. There was a moment
prior to this period in which archaeology was to be separated from
anthropology (1975), a process in which I was involved. I also was aware
of the students viewpoints and the personal problems, the tendency to
form groups, the lack of infrastructure reflected in the publications
(Arqueologa y Sociedad, Boletn del Seminario de Arqueologa, Apuntes
Arqueolgicos, las Obras del Seminario Rural Andino, etc.) that were
merely mimeographed and poorly circulated. On the other hand, the
Seminario de Arqueologa de RivaAgero was a center dedicated basically to the study of sites near or in Lima (Tablada de Lurn, Pando) with
little funding and with little national or international prestige (Kaulicke
2011:19).
As we will see in the next chapters, the situation would change in the
following decades, most profoundly when the archaeology major was created at pucp in 1983. However, the 1980s was a difficult time to conduct
archaeological research, particularly in the sierra, because of terrorism and
the economic crisis.
In the 1990s, processual archaeologists could again work in a safer
environment with the cessation of internal conflict. Up to the present day,
processualism, each year a bit more sophisticated theoretically and methodologically, and successfully addressing the criticisms that were leveled in the
Anglophone world, has remained important in Peruvian archaeology and
has partnered well with new generations of archaeologists, particularly with
the pucp, as we will see.
Chapter 10
Archaeology in 1990s Peru: A View from Lima
Introduction
he 1990s was dominated by the government of Alberto Fujimori, who

was democratically elected as president of the Republic of Peru in
1990 and, almost from the beginning of his mandate, established a
neoliberal economic model for the Peruvian state (Murakami 2007:243). His
government also made a series of reforms that supported a struggle against
the subversive movements plaguing the country. Both the reformulation of
the national economy and the fight against subversion affected the way of
doing archaeology in Peru, as Santiago Uceda (2000) argued for north coast
archaeology. Moreover, it is important to remember that the violence in
the 1990s occurred in different forms and distinct levels perpetuated by the
Peruvian state (Bowen and Holligan 2003; Burt 2009; Sandoval 2002b; Uceda
2004; and Wiener 2001, among others).
In this context, the Peruvian public university was a major arena where
the pacification of the country was aggressively pursued, and San Marcos
University was the center of this repressive policy. San Marcos was invaded
and directly controlled by the government for the entire decade, losing the
relative autonomy that it regained at the end of the military government in
the 1970s.1
This chapter touches briefly on the archaeology that was conducted
at the Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per (pucp), a theme that I will
discuss later. pucps influence began in earnest in the 1990s and increased
substantially in the twenty-first century. However, in the 1990s and 2000s,
graduates from public universities such as San Marcos still held the most
prominent positions in Peruvian archaeology. In Lima, another university
126
Archaeology in 1990s Peru
127
the Universidad Nacional Federico Villarrealadded an archaeological

career track. Miguel Aguilar (2004) offers a brief review of this institution
that is relevant here.
The history of archaeology during the 1990s in universities such as Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, the Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad
del Cusco, and the Universidad Nacional San Cristbal de Huamanga de
Ayacucho2 is yet to be written. We hope that this chapter will serve to reflect on the nature of archaeology in each of these centers of learning in the
country. In particular, we will see how the intervention of the state in these
universities affected the nature of scholarship in general, and archaeology in
particular.
It is also important to note that while these social and political tensions
were focused on Lima, there was a golden age of archaeology on the north
coast, especially in Moche archaeology. The discovery of the Lord of Sipn
in 1987 is a case in point. The north coast was also relatively unaffected by
terrorism, which created favorable conditions for foreign archaeological
expeditions.
The Government of Alberto Fujimori:

Neoliberal Economics and Authoritarianism
God help us! Thus the Minister of Economy, Juan Carlos Hurtado Miller,
ended his famous speech on August 8, 1990, effectively consigning the fate
of the nation to the gods on national television. His speech implemented
the dismal economic program for the vast majority of Peruvian families, a
program that was opposite of what they had voted for not long ago. This economic program brought about a great imbalance in household economies
and deeply affected much of my generation. The national economy had been
supported by substantial state subsidies, and could not stand the mismatch
between Peru and other larger economies in this new world of free trade. This
policy had been promoted by different multilateral financial institutions and
foreign governments from the 1980s and had been imposed on other Latin
American states (Honorio 2009:67). So, in a short time the trade balance in
the Peruvian state had to accelerate to the actual pace of the international
markets. In this new environment, poor families had to make great efforts to
survive in such a situation.3 Education was no longer a priority; rather, those
without much money had to focus on the daily struggle for survival without
much hope in the medium or long term.
Later, the coup of April 5, 1992, which dissolved the Congress and emasculated the judicial branch, showed the true face of the Fujimori government.
128
They were bent on gaining unrestrained power to implement its economic

policy and to fight subversion. Most people supported this move, in spite of
the historic rupture in the democratic institutions of the country (Degregori
[2000] 2011:32; Mauceri 1995:7). This call to restore the social order lost from
the actions of Sendero Luminoso and Movimiento Revolucionario Tpac
Amaru (mrta) was a justification that the majority found satisfactory (also
see Burt 2006:34).
Feeding this sentiment was general disillusion with the traditional political parties (Monzn et al. 1997) and widespread corruption within the
state bureaucracy. Fujimori described this as the the dictatorship of the
inept and corrupt.4 Following the central concept by Cecilia Mndez (2006)
about authoritarianism in the Peruvian Republic, we can also say that Fujimori effectively became a traditional caudillo. He controlled the military and
personally headed the fight against subversion, all of which was supported
by a large majority of the urban populations and had strong support in the
countryside (also see Mauceri 1997).5 Fujimori also brilliantly manipulated
the press (Oliart 1999:404), becoming a charismatic leader (Durand 1996).
Later, a constitutional convention created a new constitution. Not suprisingly, the constitution of 1993 permitted the direct reelection of the president. Fujimori was indeed reelected in 1995 by a substantial margin. And we
cannot forget that the principal adviser to Fujimori, Vladimiro Montesinos,
played a huge role behind the scenes (Bowen and Holligan 2003).
The installation of this neoliberal economy also had to deal with the
problem of terrorism. Sendero Luminoso and mrta had roots in democratic
politics, but radicalized in the 1980s. The Peruvian government could not
stop these movements, whose fundamental goal was to take over the state
(Adrianzn 2011) and lead it into a new era.6
The work of Carlos Ivn Degregori ([1990] 2011) provides an excellent
analysis of this period in recent Peruvian history.7 Likewise, the much-discussed Report of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation illustrates
the level of state violence not only in the countryside, but also in the city.
San Marcos University in the 1990s

Paralleling the changes in the structure of the Peruvian state, there were
radical ruptures in the role of the public universities. San Marcos was traditionally a place to reflect on and critique the political and social situation
in the country. It was taken over by the government (in Latin America,
public universities traditionally enjoyed a kind of autonomy unknown in
the Anglophone world). Professors were purged, curricula were reformed
129
undemocratically, and it was converted into a place where one could only
learn professional careers, not a place for social and political critique. This,
as designed, led to a push away from confronting the social problems of
Peru, with few exceptions.
In 1992, the San Marcos University was deeply troubled. In fact, a year
earlier Fujimori personally visited the campus, also known as Ciudad Universitaria.8 The government policies took effect immediately:9 the military
occupied the university, students and professors were arrested and jailed,
and barracks were even installed on the campus itself (see Burt 2006:47).10
Students were required to leave classes during sweeps of the campus.11 As
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reports (Comisin de la Verdad
y Reconciliacin 2003:655): The presence of the military base also meant
that sweeping operations were conducted during school hours. These operations detained many student who were listed as being involved in alleged
subversive activities.12 This repression was made complete with blackouts,
military drafts, and nighttime curfews that severely restricted the movement
of citizens in the streets of Lima.
The policies of the neoliberal philosophy were also implemented in the
university at this time.13 The curriculum was altered to be antipolitical
or politically neutral (poltica pasiva; Ponce 2002) with a focus on the
technical applications of knowledge (Degregori [2000] 2011; Lynch 2000:23),
a consequence of the disenchantment of young people with the traditional
political parties and critical, liberatory ideas. This was especially true on
the left due to some anachronistic ideas, the repression of the universities,
and the perception ( fed by the media) that political activism was negative
or, in the best scenario, that it was not necessary as part of a young persons
professional training.
One can read in the final report of the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Comisin de la Verdad y Reconciliacin 2003:633): The widespread and pernicious idea that everyone in San Marcos were terrorists, was
precisely the false perception that justified public opinion that supported in
large partthe repressive actions of the Government and the imposition of a
military base in this as in other universities considered to be terrorist bases.
In this sense, the repression of all critical thought on the left and any
militant activity by organized leftist political parties promoted an absence of
a political consciousness in what has been called Generation X. At San Marcos University, the political apathy on the left was rampant in the student
body (also see Oliart 1999:410). What emerged was a pragmatism and individualism that was promoted by the neoliberal policies of the government.
130
In May 25, 1995, the establishment of the Reorganization Commission,

led by Manuel Paredes Manrique (Mir Quesada and Vargas 2002), effectively
gave control over San Marcos University to professors allied with Fujimori14
(Quiroz 2005:89), ensuring that any opposition to the regime was controlled
and drastically reduced (see Burt 2006). The authorities even expelled some
students. The level of student participation in decision-making dropped to
almost nothing. It is therefore important to look at the school of archaeology
in this period.
Archaeology at San Marcos in the 1990s

San Marcos University has one of the oldest archaeology schools in Peru. It
began in 1975 when the academic activities were transferred almost totally
to the Avenida Venezuela campus (Figure 32). Although there were generations of archaeologists before this time, such as Luis Lumbreras, Rosa Fung,
or Ramiro Matos, there was really no such thing as professional archaeology
until the mid-1970s, when archaeology was separated from anthropology
and the Programa Acadmico de Arqueologa of San Marcos was created
by Pablo Macera and Ramiro Matos (Bonavia and Matos 1992:126; Shady
2008:11). This was the culmination of a historical process that derived from
the work of earlier scholars. An example here was the founding of the Archaeological Museum of San Marcos in 1919 by Julio C. Tello. Likewise, Luis
E. Valcrcel founded the Ethnological Institute in 1946 and Pablo Macera
established the Seminario de Historia Rural Andina in 1962. As we saw in a
previous chapter, Emilio Choy figures importantly here with his use of Marxist theory to understand the realities of contemporary Andean society.
The professionalization of archaeology corresponds roughly to the second phase of the more conservative military government of Morales Bermdez, and in the 1980s during the new democracy. In the 1990s, archaeology
continued to professionalize. However, the social sciences faculty at San
Marcos was the one of the most sympathetic to the terrorist groups. Doing
archaeology in Peru at this time, and in particular at San Marcos, was extremely complicated
Close to San Marcos University geographically, the situation at pucp was
very different. pucp was a private institution with support outside of the
state. Here, students could pursue a career in archaeology. As Kaulicke says:
It is important to remember that the 80s were very unstable times, both
politically and economically. Thanks to foreign support, particularly
the Germans in the case of the pucp, it was possible to overcome the
131
Figure 32. Aerial view of Huaca San Marcos, Lima, 1944. A majority of the University of
San Marcos campus is located to the right of the big pyramids. (Image courtesy of Servicio
Aerofotogrfico Nacional.)
crises and consolidate the archaeology major in the Fundo Pando. The
Seminario de Arqueologa [in constrast] did not develop in the same way
but kept the original structure of the 1960s. In general, this situation was
much more favorable [at the pucp] than it was for other universities
in the country, particularly at San Marcos. Internal political problems,
the retirement of established professors and the exit of foreigners due
to security and economic issues, wasted the capital that had been built
up over the years. The precarious infrastructure, mentioned above,
contributed to the crisis as well, although this was a disease that was
found in all of the archaeology programs in the country, including the
pucp, though to a lesser degree (Kaulicke 2011:24).
132
Santiago Uceda (2000:254) notes in a similar vein for the north coast:
In less than five years, from almost 20 foreign expeditions in the Peruvian
north coast, only four continued in 1992, three in the coast and one in the
highlands. This is a pattern that occurred around the country where, effectively, archaeological investigations by foreigners significantly declined or
disappeared.15
Returning to San Marcos University, due to the military intervention
and the new university regime imposed by the government, the archaeology major as well as social sciences in general was restructured to exclude
most critical theory and political action (see Degregori and Sandoval 2009).
As an example, in 1987 there were six subjects explicitly linked with Marxist
theory (Bonavia and Matos 1992:286). In 1992, only one had a course related
to Marxism. In fact, the only philosophy course (Introduction to Philosophy)
that was taught in the social science department did not include Marxist
thought. Perhaps an anachronism, a course called Political Economy used
a textbook by a famous Soviet author (Nikitin 1976). In this context, Marxist
literature was removed from the libraries; carrying a book like this could link
you to the terrorists. It was not easy to speak of certain authors, much less
study Marxist archaeologists such as Luis Lumbreras. This was a bitter irony
given the fact that a few years earlier, such authors were the most popular
and influential ones in the country, as Duccio Bonavia and Ramiro Matos
(1992) have pointed out.
The major professors at San Marcos in those days were Hernn Amat, Alberto Bueno, Ruth Shady, Jorge Silva, and Daniel Morales. Many of the most
renowned archaeologists stayed away from this university for a number of
reasons. Lumbreras had left the country for a tour of Europe, for instance.
Although San Marcos had a sufficient group of teachers to maintain the
undergraduate studies, there were serious deficiencies in the academic and
professional offerings at this time (Shady 1998).16 This was due to the lack
of government funding in the social sciences.17 Another important element
that explains certain shortcomings in the training was that in the 1990s San
Marcos increased the number of undergraduates with an increase in financial support. The obvious result was that students were not able to receive
the best possible education.
In contrast to San Marcos University, the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo had field projects where students could complete their preprofessional
training. The principal project was the work at the Huaca del Sol y de la
Luna, which from 1991 was conducted by the Department of Social Sciences
(Uceda and Morales 2010:15). San Marcos did not have any archaeological
projects, with the exception of the small excavations in Sector 11, a Lima
133
Culture site located behind the Department of Social Sciences on the San
Marcos campus. There was also the rare project conducted by San Marcos
professors that included students, without any financial support. These research projects rarely supported student theses.
There were only a few archaeological projects around Lima in the 1990s.
The Huaca Pucllana project in Miraflores and the work of older colleagues
provided some opportunities to conduct preprofessional training. The
Museo de Arqueologa was also reused on university grounds (La Casona)
and began inventories of their collections in 1996. Under the leadership of Dr.
Ruth Shady it was rejuvenated, and incorporated students into research on
the collections. Likewise, the then-nascent Caral Project, and later the work
at Huaca San Marcos, provided students opportunities for their practica
(Narvez 1999) (Figure 33).
It was in this context that the first licenciatura examinations were established. This mechanism allowed the licensing of many colleagues who
were recognized as professionals, giving them a new and enhanced status. Of
course, this also meant that other colleagues with less experience, including
the author of this book, were able to achieve this professional status as well.
Without going into too great a detail about the diminution of research and
Figure 33. Ruth Shady and Joaqun Narvaez at the top of Huaca San Marcos during
excavations, Lima, 2000. Courtesy of Joaqun Narvez.
134
scientific productivity in our school, I can refer you to the analyses of Alex
Gonzles Panta (2010) and Augusto Bazn (2011).18 The only point I want to
make is that, independently of academic quality, this licensing process has
created a large number of professionals. This title allows them to work in
archaeology and compete for jobs alongside their counterparts from universities in Lima as well as the provinces.
The shortcomings in vocational training in the 1990s had to be overcome in other venues outside of the university. It is not stretch to say that
the library in the social sciences department at San Marcos was far from an
ideal place to conduct investigations. There was also a library in the school of
archaeology that gradually declined over the years until it practically disappeared.
Given this unflattering situation, many of the students had to work with
the few Peruvian archaeologists that actually had projects, or had to work
with the foreigners conducting research in the Andes. There was no systematic attempt to place students on field research projects. Rather, each of
the students worked out agreements with different archaeological projects
through personal and professional contacts. These fascinating life stories are
sadly beyond the scope of this book.
Conclusion
The arrival of democracy in the 1980s created a social environment in which
many of the political demands could be channeled in a legal and democratic
manner. In spite of this, political groups on the radical left chose to follow a
violent path, retreating to the sierras where the field was fertile because of
the historically unresolved social injustices. Some student groups opted for
this violent path, which was linked to political orthodoxy, party dogmatism,
and a cultish dedication to individual leaders.
Later, Lima became the center of the struggle for political power. In this
context, San Marcos University also played a significant role generating radical groups, given its political traditions and the socioeconomic profile of its
student body.
The Fujimori government adopted a hardline counterinsurgency program aimed at San Marcos and other universities in Peru, forcing them to
deal with this new reality. Compounding this was the fact that the institutions of higher learning had severe economic problems, and their new
leaders encountered a high level of corruption and bureaucratic intransigence that justified the very changes demanded by the students previously.
However, the military occupation of San Marcos University was not based
135
upon a desire to improve education but rather to control the student body
and sideline subversive speech that the Fujimori regime did not accept. San
Marcos was almost completely politicized in the 1980s. After the military
intervention, the purges, and the disappearances of the Fujimori government, the university in the 1990s was a pacified place where it was very
difficult to have leftist political discussion or, for that matter, any form of
critical thought contrary to government interests. Something that is not well
known is that there were a number of leftist groups that criticized Sendero
Luminoso and mrta to the point that Sendero Luminoso had assassinated
some 300 prominent leftist critics by the mid-1990s (Ron 2001:570). The military intervention on the campus did not distinguish between these different
groups, lumping all of them under the category of subversive.
Although the fight against insurgent groups and the control of the university by the government brought a superficial atmosphere of calm, this
new situation did not necessarily improve academic quality (interview with
German 1996 in Vargas 2005). So many San Marcos students had to look
for other opportunities to finish or enhance their education. As mentioned,
the choices available included working with foreigners, or with the Instituto
Nacional de Cultura and the Comisin de Formalizacin de la Propiedad Informal (cofopri). This latter group was a government agency charged with
legalizing land titles in the country; locating and documenting archaeological sites were an important component of this work.
Perus situation in the 1990s was very different from today. The end of the
1990s marked the beginning of what is known as cultural resource management (crm) in a distinctly Peruvian model. The neoliberal economic policies of successive governments allowed archaeologists to enter the private
sector, working for large mining and other companies. This is referred to
as contract archaeology or impact archaeology (Del guila [1998] 2007;
Shady 2000). Though recent, there already are some attempts to explain this
phenomenon (Bazn et al. 2008; Gonzles Panta 2010; Lane 2012). This is one
of the important contexts into which Peruvian archaeology developed as a
discipline and career. We will now turn to the nature of Peruvian archaeology in the twenty-first century.
Chapter 11
Peruvian Archaeology at the Beginning

of the Twenty-First Century: Boom and Bust
Peru in the First Decade of the Twenty-First Century
emocracy was reestablished in Peru after the Fujimori regime

fell in 2000. Valentn Paniagua headed the transitional government,
and Alejandro Toledo won the new elections, continuing most of
Fujimoris neoliberal policies while at the same time creating a more open
government and getting rid of the former presidents lackeys.
It is interesting to note here Toledos well-calculated inauguration at the
archaeological site of Machu Picchu, discussed here by Yazmn Lpez Lenci
(2005):
Machu Picchu . . . appears in the early 21st century as the stage of an
unusual presidential inauguration in July 2001, unprecedented in the
history of the Republic . . . marking the start of what their protagonists,
Alejandro Toledo and Eliane Karp declared to be a refoundational moment of the country. Karp, who sought to decipher the message of the
Apus (who in reality never spoke) announced in their bilingual speech,
in Quechua and Spanish, the return of the Inca: [We] have returned to
the time of the chacana. We have met our obligation [hemos cumplido].
Everyone has brought the time of the tenth Pachacutec to this modern
world with equity and equality for all peoples of the great Tahuantinsuyu. This inauguration should showcase the definitive collapse of the
Fujimori dictatorship of the 90s and announce a new era of increased
globalization of the country. Machu Picchu became the icon of a
discourse based upon ethnic and religious features to justify a second
wave of neoliberalism . . . (Lpez Lenci 2005:68).
136
Peruvian Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century
137
Later, Alan Garca won a second mandate from 2005 to 2010 with support
from the apra party.1 He likewise continued the neoliberal policies of his
predecessors. Perus economy continued to grow in macroeconomic terms,
becoming one of the strongest in South America. Moreover, the political
violence that so wracked the country during the twentieth century came to
a definitive end, creating a more open environment for political discussions
that included the now-disillusioned Peruvian left.
Many Fujimori-era laws were kept in place during the Toledo and Garca
administrations. In fact, the constitution of Peru in use today is the same that
was approved in 1993 by the Fujimori government. One of these controversial
laws liberalized higher education (Decreto Legislativo 882 de 1996), which
promoted the creation of many universities of different levels of quality. At
the same time, public universities continued to face economic problems
inherited from the past. They were also highly politicized and reactionary,
preventing significant change to meet the changing needs of students. One
can say that private universities have compensated for the shortcomings
and failures of public universities. Also, the nonprofit majors have lost the
support of the state: this is particularly true for the social sciences in general,
and archaeology in particular.
Archaeology and the Peruvian University

As we have seen in previous chapters, the public universities generated a
number of intellectuals who have promoted national archaeology or have
provided foreign researchers a base for their research, facilitating academic
contact with Peruvian colleagues, providing students, and so forth. They also
were the primary training centers for professional careers in archaeology
beginning in the 1960s. The relationship between intellectuals and the wider
political economy was made evident in the 1990s; in particular, it was evident
that state institutions supporting intellectual movements that criticized the
government were in a particularly precarious position. In contrast, the private universities were formed in a distinctly different political economy and
began to educate people that fit well into the new system. So the crisis in the
public university explains in part the boom of private universities in Peru.
The Crisis in the Public University and Its Effect on Archaeology
In 1999, Ramiro Matos Mendieta bemoaned the situation in Peru, compared
with that in Mexico:
138
Mexico has developed a strong school of ethnoarchaeology while in

Peru there does not exist a school of archaeological thought. Professors
like me and my colleagues such as Lumbreras, Rosa Fung, D. Bonavia,
and now the young scholars have been working with methods and
theories that were imposed on us from outside of Peru. We do not have
our own school. Mexico has it, and everyone says that Mexico is a
nationalistic country, even chauvinistic, because they have found their
own way to develop their identity, but we have not. . . . We have no
historical identity. . . . The concept of historical identity, the concept of
ethnic identity is much deeper than mere classifications written on
paper. . . .
We were always repeating what we were taught or doing archaeology
as any foreigner. I think here this is one of the big problems, the lack
of identity with what we have, the lack of identity with the objectives
of our work, the lack of identity with the resources that allow us to be
archaeologists, to nurture our archaeology. The archaeological heritage
of Peru, like any other part of the world, is not an inexhaustable mine;
we are witness to its depletion and ultimate loss. We are witnesses and
generally we are impotent to stop the destruction and extraction of our
archaeological resources (Matos Mendieta 1999:115).
Matos remarks were given at a discussion of the state of archaeology in
Peru and in the department of social sciences at San Marcos University. Because Matos was a professor in Peru and now works at the Smithsonian, he
is able to provide a perspective from the outside and can be freely critical,
even with his own colleagues.
The advent of the twenty-first century should have brought us a modern
public university, but as Matos says, there was a great problem with the archaeological community and for the students as well. Likewise, north coast
archaeology shifted to the discovery of the big finds, such as the Seor de
Sipn, leading to what Matos calls the Seor de Sipn syndrome. Obviously, unlike previous scholars, Peruvian archaeologists were not dedicated
to linking archaeology with the other facets of social life. This focus on big
tombs and big exhibitions, usually funded in part to promote tourism from
outside, displaced interest in more humble but important sites and objects
such as the focus on the household (e.g., see Bermann 1994; Stanish 1989;
Taboada and Angiorama 2003; Wilk and Rathje 1982). As Matos Mendieta
argues (1999:11617): Archaeology also claims to work with the people, with
the bulk of the people who claim to work with the people, and with the bulk
139
of the people who made the Andean civilization one of the greatest civilizations of the world.
Certainly, Matos Mendietas description is not very flattering or conducive to a robust archaeology, at least from the classrooms at San Marcos.
This is unfortunately a situation that could be extrapolated to other public
universities in the country. The situation in the only private university in
the country granting degrees in archaeology was quite different. We refer, of
course, to the Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per (pucp), which clearly
took over the leadership of Peruvian archaeology in the twenty-first century
(see Lane 2012:221).
The Rise of Archaeology in the PUCP
Very close to the San Marcos University campus, on the Avenida Universitaria, is the campus of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, known either
as pucp or simply La Catolica. This private university was founded in 1917
from land donated by the great Jos de la Riva Agero. The pucp has a very
long humanist intellectual tradition and has been very influential in Peruvian
national life. It is also one of the few universities with a vibrant archaeology
program. The history of the archaeology major goes back to the Seminario de
Arqueologa of the Instituto Riva Agero that was founded in 1958 by Josefina
Ramos de Cox (Kaulicke 2011:17) and which has continued to function parallel to the program at pucp, which was established in 1983 through the efforts
Peter Kaulicke and Kzrysztof Makowski. In the first decade since its founding, the program has established itself as an academically excellent career
track promoting research and education through field schools. A number of
pucp students have traveled abroad for doctoral studies as well. Unlike the
situation at San Marcos, pucp has been able to provide their students the
opportunity to establish their academic credentials and work in Peru. Most
important in some respects, pucp has displaced San Marcos as the most
prestigious archaeology program at an international level. In fact, some of
their students have obtained jobs in foreign universities, reinforcing their
strong international reputation. And this is all done with a largely Peruvian
staff of professors augmented by some foreign scholars.
The projects of the pucp students and professors are important because
they place the archaeology program in different areas and resonate with the
Peruvian public. One of these projects was at the Tablada de Lurn, where
many students were trained in the 1990s. The San Jos de Moro project, directed by Luis Jaime Castillo, is now driving a model of archaeology in Peru
140
and continues to keep the Moche in the limelight, both nationally and internationally. This is due to their expansive field schools, their archaeological
discoveries, and their multimedia publications. These projects also attract
foreign colleagues who collaborate with the students and project directors
at pucp.2
An important element in the rise of pucps archaeology program is the
symposia organized by Peter Kaulicke since 1996. The results of these symposia are published in the Boletn de Arqueologa de la pucp. This publication is
comprehensive in nature, covering practically the entire prehistory of Peru,
and nicely integrates foreign and national archaeologists, convening them
in Lima.
Thus, archaeology at pucp has provided an important arena for Peruvian archaeology, and has emerged as a global leader in Andean studies.
Public and Private Management of Archaeological Heritage

One of the most important fields in Peru developed in the first decade of the
twenty-first century is archaeological heritage management. This relatively
new phenomenon relates to the understanding of archaeological sites and
objects as resources and their rational management. In Peru, like in the
United States, both public and private entities are part of this new vision.
Careers in cultural heritage management have been formalized in some
institutions, with universities offering a certificate (gestor) in cultural patrimony that accompanies the licenciatura. This also is related to international
shifts in cultural heritage management in international organizations such
as unesco. Another source of the Peruvian model is that developed in the
Iberian peninsula, especially Barcelona (Ballart 1997; Ballart and Tresserras
2001). Finally there are some similarities to the cultural resource management (crm) models developed in countries like the United States and the
United Kingdom.
The Peruvian State and Archaeology
The Peruvian government has developed a number of agencies and institutions dedicated to the registration, preservation, and research of archaeological remains. From the Patronato de Arqueologa founded by Julio C. Tello
in 1929 to the Casa de la Cultura (19621971), and the National Institute of
Culture (inc; 19712010) to the newly created Ministry of Culture, these
institutions have managed the cultural politics of Peru in archaeology. Likewise, entities called Unidades Ejecutoras (Executive Units) are important
141
government agencies that promote archaeological research, conservation,

and education about the important archaeological sites in the country.
The Ministry of Culture
Until a few years ago, archaeological matters in Peru were managed under
the National Institute of Culture. The inc was under the Education Ministry,
and was established in 1971 under Velascos military government. Beginning
in 2012, the incs functions were absorbed by the newly established Ministry
of Culture. As stated in the document Guidelines for Cultural Policy (Lineamientos de Poltica Cultural), prepared by the same Ministry:
In 2012, the various government agencies such as Instituto Nacional de
Cultura-inc, the Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indgenas, Amaznicos y Afroperuanos-indepa, the Consejo Nacional de
Cinematografa-conacine, the Consejo Nacional de Democratizacin
del Libro y de Fomento de la Lectura-promolibro, the Proyecto Especial Complejo Arqueolgico de Chan Chan, and the Proyecto Especial
Naylamp-Lambayeque y la Unidad Ejecutora Marcahuamachuco, were
all forged together under the Ministry of Culture (Ministerio de Cultura
2012:3).
This new mega-Ministry was composed of numerous pre-existing governmental entities. Here, we will just look at its role in archaeology.
There is a specific office of archaeology, under a larger directorate of patrimony. This archaeological office, according to the Ministrys website, . . . is
the entity in charge of the technical and policy aspects the administration of
the archaeological patrimony of the country. It is responsible for creating the
regulations and policies as well as the execution and promotion of these
laws to preserve, investigate, conserve, register, promote and enhance the
archaeological patrimony (Ministerio de Cultura n.d.).
The functions are as follows:
1) Design, propose and implement policies, strategies, guidelines and
policies for the management and administration of archaeological heritage; 2) identify, register and inventory archaeological monuments in
order to legalize, delimit and create a public registry, 3) provide certificates of proof of lack of archaeological remains (cira); 4) provide technical reports, assess, authorize, supervise and approve research projects
as appropriate; 5) encourage the creation of site museums or interpretive
centers at archaeological monuments and provide educational materials in coordination with other public and private entities; 6) design,
142
develop and update a national system of cultural data about the archaeological heritage; maintain the National Registry of Archaeologists
(Ministerio de Cultura n.d.).
This Ministry therefore has a huge responsibility for the entire cultural
patrimony of the nation. It also generates and stores a vast quantity of information. One of its main challenges is to defend archaeological heritage;
in addition, it is expected to develop consistent and realistic policies for the
management of the archaeological heritage.3 It is an institution that will be
the key player in the following years because, as we have seen in previous
chapters, archaeology and culture are fundamental, emblematic elements of
the Peruvian nation.
One recent example of a major archaeological program developed by the
Ministry of Culture is the Qhapaq an project. This project originated with
the old inc and was proposed during the administration of Luis Lumbreras.
Now in the Ministry of Culture, the Qhapaq an project is designed to study
the Inca Road system as a part of the world cultural patrimony. This road
runs through Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Boliva, Chile, and Argentina, passing
through national frontiers. Along with the road, various sites and archaeological landscapes have also been documented. Obviously, one of the goals
of this project is to promote tourism. In spite of some criticism (Korstanje
and Garca 2007), the project has indeed generated a huge amount of data.
Significantly, many Executive Units have taken on an important role in this
project as well.
Executive Units and Archaeological Sites
Established by the Peruvian government in 2001, the Executive Units are decentralized public entities that are administratively and financially autonomous and supervised by technocratic institutions. The Executive Units are
linked directly to archaeological supervision under the Ministry of Culture.
Today, major archaeological sites such as Caral, Sipn (within the Naylamp
Executive Unit), Tcume, Marcahuamachuco, etc., are managed by Executive Units. This indicates that the Executive Units have invested large sums of
money for research, conservation, and tourism development.
The iconic site of Caral and nearby sites is a good case in point. This work
has been directed by Dr. Ruth Shady since 1993 as a small project funded
by the inc. In 1996, Shady received a grant from the National Geographic
Society. In 1997, Shady became director of the Archaeological Museum at
San Marcos and the Caral project affiliated with this institution. As a result,
143
the University funded the project. Although the government supported

this work at Caral, there were bureaucratic problems in the university that
prevented Shady from receiving her funds. Morever, after a harsh intellectual dispute with two North American archaeologists, the Caral project was
finally converted into an Executive Unit in 2003. Later, with the assistance of
the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism (Ministerio de Comercio Exterior
y Turismo) and through Plan copesco, the Caral work became the Proyecto
Especial Arqueolgico Caral-Supe, which created a master plan for research,
conservation, and protection of the sites in the Supe Valley and neighboring areas. An additional objective was to promote social and economic
development in the area. One result of all this work is that in 2009, unesco
listed Caral as a World Heritage Site. At the present time, this organization
is known as the Caral Archaeological Zone (Zona Arqueolgica Caral), a
creation of the new Ministry of Culture.4
This brief account of the difficulties that an archaeologist had to face to
carry out a research project on such an important site for Peruvian archaeology describes the shortcomings that exist in the management of archaeological projects in Peru. Shadys work did, however, raise Carals profile both
nationally and internationally. This has created the iconic view of the site as
the oldest city in America, a vision very similar to that of Tellos mother
culture perspective (Shady 2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2009). This has been a very
significant development for Peruvian society in general, and for archaeology
in particular.
In fact, many of the most important archaeological projects in Peru have
had similar stories that finally led to the creation of Executive Unit status.
This attracts public attention and can channel funds for research and conservation. Such an approach requires attention to press releases, public conferences, and popular publications. It is useful if the site has large architectural
monuments and lavish tombs. This is seen in the north coast with the discovery of kings and queens in Moche or Sicn societies, phenomenon
that, as noted earlier in this chapter, Matos Mendieta (1999:117) has called
the Sipn syndrome. Such an approach demonstrates a successful outcome
of public relations, particularly with the local communities, as we will see in
this chapter.
The Rise of Archaeology in the North Coast of Peru

As we saw, the archaeology of the northern Peruvian coast has a long history
beginning with the work of Max Uhle, continuing with the investigations of
Larco Hoyle, the Vir project in the early 1940s, and the Chan ChanMoche
144
Valley project from the late 1960s through the 1980s with the discovery of the
tomb of the Lord of Sipn. It was Walter Alvas discoveries at Sipn that
gave rise to what has been called the golden age of north coast archaeology
(Figure 34). Along with these major discoveries has been the large increase in
the number of foreign and national archaeological programs outside of the
monumental sites. It is significant that the Huacas de la Luna y del Sol Project began with funds from the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo; the bulk of
the money now comes from the private beer company Unin de Cerveceras
Peruanas Backus y Johnston and later from foundations such as the World
Monuments Fund (Uceda and Morales 2010:15). We therefore see a project
started by a public university and then later supported by private Peruvian
companies and international foundations. Another case is the Proyecto
Arqueolgico El Brujo in the Chicama Valley, which began in 1990 with funding by the private Peruvian Fundacin Wiese (Mujica 2007:19). The Executive
Unit model is also involved in sites such as Chotuna-Chornancap, Sipn, and
Tcume.5 Chan Chan itself has been intensively excavated to enhance its
tourist potential.
Thus, north coast archaeology has various levels of funding from small
grants received by researchers for specific research projects through the
Figure 34. Mariana Mould de Peases book presentation, Lima, 1997. From left to right:
Susana Meneses, Franklin Pease, Mariana Mould de Pease, Mara Rostworowski, and Walter
Alva, 1997. Courtesy of Mariana Mould de Pease.
145
field schools to the big budgets that manage a set of sites for research and
conservation. Obviously, this has generated many jobs for archaeologists
and also provides research opportunities. It also helps students conduct
their preprofessional training. And it has enhanced tourism, specifically with
the creation of the Ruta Moche (The Moche Route). It is still unclear how
this helps the local communities in the long term, both economically and
socially.
Private Archaeological Companies

Private archaeological firms started in the mid-1990s and have grown substantially, particularly in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In the
beginning, these were professional archaeologists that worked for construction companies. Now, we see bona fide crm firms that hire dozens of archaeologists for road projects, powerline construction, and so forth. This is
due in part to the neoliberal economic policies that have encouraged capital
investment, particularly in mining. Actually, this boom known as contract
archaeology meant a revolution in the labor market for archaeologists
when compared with the situation of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Obviously,
this development has been criticized as a corruption in the socialization of
archaeological knowledge in the country. Nevertheless, it is important to
emphasize that contract archaeology has made this a lucrative career, which
of course brings critics who point to some ethical issues that develop from
such a policy.
Foreign Archaeological Research Projects

Archaeological research projects have been increased substantially since the
early 1990s, after the decline in the 1980s because of terrorism. Since 2000,
foreign archaeologists were required to have a national co-director. This has
created a dynamic in which many Peruvian archaeologists are assimilated to
foreign research programs in many different ways. These research projects
are usually funded with grants from the government of the country of origin
or by the universities where foreign archaeologists work. Likewise, there are
private foundations such as National Geographic or Wenner-Gren that fund
archaeological research. As we have seen, the American presence is by far
the most important in Peru during the twentieth century. This is evident by
the Society for American Archaeology (saa) annual meetings, where American researchers discuss the progress and results of their Peruvian research.
146
There are also projects by Japanese (Onuki, Seki), German (Reindel,

Lambers), English (Sillar, Beresford-Jones, Lane), French (Lavalle, Julien,
Bachir), Italian (Orefici, Orsini), Polish (Ziokowski, Giersz), and Spanish
(Castro) research teams, among others, contributing to archaeology in Peru.
In fact, the history of archaeological work by foreigners in Peru is much older
and goes back to the end of the nineteenth century, as we discussed earlier
in this volume (also see Tantalen and Astuhuamn 2013). The point here is
that the input of foreign funds has helped Peruvian archaeology. Also, each of
these research traditions in Peru has its own theoretical and methodological
guidelines, although in recent years, perhaps due to the greater presence of
US archaeologists, there is an emphasis on American processualism with the
occasional echo of a postmodern critique concerning agency and ideology.
This situation is clearly reflected in the articles published in the Bulletin of
Archaeology of pucp. It also appears that the north coast is still preferred by
North Americans (Quilter and Castillo 2010), although in the last few years
the south coast has become popular again (e.g., Vaughn 2011). The same is
true of the northern sierra (e.g., Toohey 2009), the central Andes (e.g., Tung
2012), and the south (Aldenderfer 2011; Arkush 2011; Stanish and Levine 2011).
The selva is still not intensively worked, although many mining companies
have hired archaeologists to conduct environmental impact reports. In any
case, the impact on Peruvian archaeology by American archaeologists can
be recognized in the Handbook of South American Archaeology (Silverman
and Isbell 2008).
Conclusion
The number of archaeologists in Peru in the last decade has soared. According to the Colegio de Arquelogos del Per (coarpe) website, there are
903 people licensed to conduct archaeology in the country (coarpe 2014).
Taking into account that this register is not obligatory, we estimate approximately 1,200 professional archaeologists are working in Peru in addition
to undergraduate students who work in the field. This increase is directly
linked to the demand for archaeologists in crm. Likewise, San Marcos, as
discussed in this chapter, offers alternatives to the written thesis, saving
time and money to get certified. We can categorize Peruvian archaeologists
today in the following ways:
1 crm archaeologists;
2 Government archaeologists;
3 Archaeologists working for foreign research projects;
4 University professors;
147
5 Archaeologists working in private institutions (private museums); and

6 Archaeologists studying overseas for postgraduate work.
These categories are not mutually exclusive, as many archaeologists have
simultaneously conducted their work in different contexts.
Most crm archaeologists work for mining companies, construction
companies, and any other industry that needs a certificate guaranteeing that
there are no sites in a potentially affected area. This certificate is required
by the government through the Ministry of Culture. In fact, most of the new
generation of archaeologists have found work in crm or related private
businesses. This represents a wholesale shift in the demographics of archaeology in Peru. Up to the 1990s, university professors dominated the field,
with the most prestigious archaeology department in the capital city at San
Marcos University. Now, there are far more crm archaeologists than professors in the country, while there has been a simultaneous shift in the center
of archaeological knowledge production to the privately funded pucp and
some high-quality universities in major cities such as Trujillo. There are
in total eight universities that offer a major in archaeology in the country:
San Marcos University, the Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, pucp,
the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, the Universidad Nacional Santiago
Antnez de Mayolo, the Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga de Ica, the
Universidad Nacional San Cristbal de Huamanga, and the Universidad San
Antonio Abad del Cusco. Complementing this are the archaeologists who
work for the government, particularly in the Ministry of Culture.
Another important group of Peruvian archaeologists work as partners
with foreign research projects. As we have seen, many archaeologists from
different countries conduct research in Peru. These projects need the support of students and national colleagues. Thus, in recent years, thanks to a
climate of political and economic stability, more foreign, especially American,
archaeology projects have been established for the medium and long terms.
Moreover, there has been a healthy exchange and knowledge transfer between foreign and domestic colleagues, and there has been increased support
for national archaeologists. This is significant in cases where the projects are
conducted away from the iconic, monumental sites that attract Peruvian
government or Executive Unit funding. Without much tourist or economic
development potential, there is little to no local funding available. The foreign projects in these contexts help fill in some badly needed funding gaps.
Finally, in recent years, some archaeologists have gone abroad for graduate studies. Most go to the United States, especially students from pucp.
148
Another group has chosen to study in Europe, especially France, Spain, and
the United Kingdom. It is noteworthy that many of these students get scholarships to study abroad or have the ability to finance themselves. In many
cases, these students have returned to work in Peru, although some have
remained in the country where they studied.
There are a few things that need to be improved in Peruvian archaeology.
First, while coarpe is a good start, there is no professional organization
that can speak in a unified voice for Peruvian archaeologists. We lack an
organization such as the Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa in countries like
Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Second, there is a significant lack of an institution to provide funds for basic research, as we see in Chile and Argentina
through their science foundations. It would be ideal if the government could
establish research centers in conjunction with universities and museums.
In summary, Peruvian archaeology has experienced a massive shift from
a small group of public university professors focused on San Marcos University to a much larger group of public and private archaeologists working in a
variety of contexts.
Conclusion:
New Horizons for Peruvian

Archaeology in a Globalized World
n this book I have examined the different theories about the past that
different researchers and archaeologists have developed. These studies
have generated explanations within economic, political, and ideological
contexts that have provided sustenance, support, and reproducibility even
beyond archaeology itself. Almost all of these frameworks have come from
foreign intellectuals. Even when Peru experienced nationalistic political
environments, with archaeologists such as Tello in the 1920s or Lumbreras,
foreign thought was still overwhelmingly influential. Tellos theory was
known as cultural historicism in both its American and European versions,
and Lumbreras Marxist ideals were in addition to other theories originally
generated in Europe.
For this reason, it is apparent that archaeologists have provided the
material throughout Peruvian history for governments to implement the
necessary ideologies, through economic and political changes, to support
these explanations. In fact, the government has provided possibilities for
archaeologists to establish their own intellectual spaces, but some leaders
have marginalized certain perspectives from the past. All of this allows us to
better understand the history of archaeology as part of a much wider social
process that clearly transcends the borders of archaeology as we know it.
It is worth noting that Peruvian archaeology began in the nineteenth century with European and North American interest in and economic support
of Peruvian archaeological collections and their accompanying officials and
employees; later, in the early twentieth century, the Peruvian government
provided support for archaeological activities to the point of nationalizing
archaeological activity in Peru, according to Grahame Clark ([1947] 1980:237).
149
150
During the tenure of President Augusto B. Legua (19191930), the government considered nationalizing archaeology, but quickly abandoned the
idea during World War II, when the United States gained a greater presence
in Latin America. By then, nearly all Peruvian archaeology was conducted
by foreigners, most from the United States. However, in the mid-twentieth
century, President Juan Velasco Alvarado (19681975) supported archaeology
in Peru conducted by Peruvians themselves, which corresponded with his
nationalist political stance. At the end of the century, as neoliberal politics
emerged, control of Peruvian archaeology was once again returned to private companies and clearly defined capitalist practices. This is a sign of the
privatization of archaeology in Peru because of the lack of funding and political support from the Peruvian government, which does not see archaeology as a profitable business. Thus, the management of archaeological objects
and sites became a business run by foreigners. However, the landscape of
archaeology presented in this book allows us to see that it was not always
this way; some government policies have benefited from our knowledge of
the past, and archaeology was not just a way to gain money through tourism.
Another important thing to recognize through this historical analysis
of Peruvian archaeology is that archaeologists, especially those discussed
here, have played an important role in the intellectual and ideological
movements of Peru. They have also helped generate a national identity. This
nationalism has historically always been generated by Limas upper classes
and powered by the capital citys government. I believe that our identity, as
a universal anthropological process, has a series of elements that also could
be important to the Peruvian society if that identity were to be generated in
an objective and scientific manner or, more important, with the intention
of creating a more just and democratic society than the one that currently
exists. Racism has been a large part of society throughout the creation of a
Peruvian national identity, but today it is just one of the unwanted elements
in the construction of the Peruvian nation. The archaeology, anthropology,
and history of Peru also should be considered in the construction of local or
regional identities, since they continue to be important elements of society
and should not be overlooked. Archaeology has had a prominent role in the
development of these regional and local identities by providing materials
that give new insight. We can appreciate that the local history of the north
coast of Peru now includes archaeological sites and artifacts of the Sicn or
Moche societies (Asencio 2012; Saucedo 2012b; Silva 2007) (Figure 35).
One thing that follows from this analysis, which may be part of my own
bias, is that Peru has a centralized vision emanating from Lima that also
affects the structure of Peruvian institutions. Thus, because of the centraliza-
New Horizons
151
Figure 35. Performance of Dama de Cao at Huaca El Brujo, Chicama Valley, La
Libertad, April 2009. Dama de Cao was discovered at Huaca El Brujo, an important
Moche site. Photo by Henry Tantalen.
tion of the Republic of Peru, a legacy of the Viceroyalty, Lima is the place
where the most prominent intellectuals make their home. Notable exceptions to this are Larco Hoyle, who resided near Trujillo, and Valcrcel, who
lived in Cusco until 1930. So ultimately, we have a Limea urban vision of the
historical processes, which is not just archaeological heritage but also history (Mndez 2011). What we can appreciate for now is that the intellectuals
associated with Peruvian archaeology have stopped forming and developing
their careers only in Lima. This means that the possibility of having a professional career in archaeological research and contributing to the knowledge
of national reality still depends on the centralized manner in which Peru
was formed. Also, since the provinces of the country have limited access to
knowledge and education, it generates an unequal production, distribution,
and consumption of knowledge in this historic case. There is little representation for intellectuals who do not reside in the capital; when they do have
a voice, they have to travel to the capital, where the principal government
institutions are. In reality, one of the biggest issues within Peru is that from
152
Lima it is difficult understand the exact nature of the other provinces, especially the needs of the communities that are contradicted by the government
policies put in place. However, starting in 2002, regional governments have
formed that have a certain political and economic autonomy, but the lack of
representation on the national level is still the same. For example, the laws
that are passed by the Congress of the Republic affect the entire nation of
Peru.
Apart from this top-down view, important as a historiographical trend,
it is important to see archaeologists as agents, from below, of their own history. While doing a genealogical study one can see that many archaeologists
have found their niche or have even been sent by their mentors, professors,
or bosses to study Peruvian archaeology. Despite this, it is clear that those
same archaeologists started to weave their own social networks with intellectuals and politicians that let them create a space for the discussion and
manifestation of particular important ideas that pertained to their collective
or social interest groups. Thus, these archaeologists were able to establish
their place of work or research on their own through their social networks.
It is important to recognize that the perspectives of these archaeologists can
sometimes change over time as historical context changes or even if they are
just looking to better their living conditions as human beings, especially as
intellectuals. They have managed to find enough support to continue working as archaeologists.
However, this book demonstrates that Peruvian archaeology is full of
successes and failures alike and is a good case study to provide analytical
tools. It also has developed a confrontation between the positive and negative elements, which await a much more detailed analysis. The interaction
between Peruvians and foreigners through archaeology in Peru, for better
or for worse, has created and continues to develop what we call Peruvian
archaeology. This interaction is one of the greatest legacies of archaeology
in Peru. Understanding how this happened and how it affects the people
involved, whether they are archaeologists or not, is important to develop
better social relationships for the future. We believe that this book helps
us understand how we can do archaeology better while still addressing our
objective to reconstruct the past so as to learn from it, and also to propose
solutions with society to build a better future for our community.
Archaeology in Peru has established the fundamental elements for
archaeology throughout South America. Since Peru is the nuclear area of
prehispanic social development and even of great empires, more researchers have come to Peru than to other countries. However, other countries in
the region are now clearly surpassing the archaeology done in Peru. This is
New Horizons
153
because in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, the state finances
its archaeologists and their projects through their public research agencies.
Since archaeology in Peru is not funded by the state, archaeologists have
had to find other means to finance their projects and publications. Thus, the
solidarity between archaeologists and institutions formed for the countrys
investigations has become tradition since the time of Julio C. Tello and even
before. Obviously these connections vary, but the important thing is that
these relations need to stay as close as possible in the future.
At present, there are field schools that integrate foreign exchange
students and Peruvian students under the direction of experienced archaeologists, typically Americans with Peruvian codirectors. These schools
generate novel experiences that have allowed new generations of students
as researchers to establish short- and medium-term projects. This not only
can provide new archaeological data, but also promotes the protection of
Peruvian archaeology and the possibility that those archaeologists will return to those research sites and encourage the local communities to learn
more about their past. Also, the cooperation with countries that want to
help research and conserve these archaeological sites has proven very useful in Peruvian archaeology because it allows anyone to visit and conserve
archaeological sites: local people, Peruvian tourists, and foreigners.
Since Peruvian archaeology has been handled for the most part by international, national, and private institutionsmuch like other aspects of
Peruthe indigenous groups sometimes become rhetorical voices, and
their lack of representation in the politics of archaeological projects is
evident. They are a fundamental part of realizing Peruvian exhibitions, and
should really start to be incorporated and consulted in the development
and implementation of national cultural laws because they are the people
most affected by them. In recent years, archaeologists have tried to approach
this social dilemma through public archaeology, defined as the field that
studies the outcome relationships that arise when archaeology goes beyond
the academic world, [allowing] a multi-disciplinary discussion about the
relationships between academics and the public (Saucedo 2012a:177). However, it is still in its development stages in Peru, which indicates how little
attention is given to archaeology in general, including the archaeological
ideas, needs, and proposals from people associated with the archaeological
sites. Fortunately, this situation appears to be changing in the archaeology
community, with those trying to apply a public archaeology framework in
Peru (Saucedo 2012b). Moreover, in contrast to other Latin American countries (see various in Gnecco and Ayala 2010a),1 in Peru there is no such thing
as Indigenous Archaeology (Herrera 2010). As we have seen in this book,
154
this corroborates the lack of government resources put into archaeology in

a country with such a high percentage of indigenous people who have been
the focal point of its political, historical, sociological, anthropological, and
archaeological debates throughout its republican history.
As we have seen in this book, dialog has been repeatedly silenced, much
as archaeology has often been marginalized. Todays Peruvian Republic
preserves many colonial-era types of racism. As Cecilia Mndez reminds us
(2011:60), according to Flores Galindo ([2005] 2010:200), Lima, the capital of
Peru, has been the center of irradacin of racist ideology, something that
should be confronted and surpassed by the Peruvian societystarting with
Limaif it really wishes to become a more inclusive society. These same
groups who have taken leadership roles in the past surely will take a predominant role in these debates and intellectual spaces in the near future.
Because of this, it is important to recognize that all of these communities,
whether they recognize indigenous people or not, have a number of socioeconomic and sociopolitical claims outside of archaeology. This may be because archaeology is not something specific, or what the archaeologists call
an archaeological object or site is just part of those communities everyday worlds. So, it is important that archaeologists also start to understand
how the indigenous perception of the world of archaeology contrasts with
the modern, Western vision. Thus, it is clear that many more discussions
and reflections will be necessary both inside and outside of the academic
world to gain a true dialog between those who are on the outside of archaeology and those who are within it. Even though the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) has been in effect in the United
States since 1990, nothing similar exists in Peru. But it is possible that in the
next few years, depending on how things go, the indigenous communities
will begin to establish such a precedent with the Peruvian government.
One of the fundamental elements we believe and observe as analysts
of the prehistory of Peru is that during certain periods of history, different
social groups have inhabited the same space to overcome production problems from social life or to cope with problems arising from nature itself.
Also, the states that existed in the prehistoric Andes, independent from
their class structure and/or elite interests, used the same joint economic,
political, and ideological spaces to reproduce their statehood. This has left a
priceless archaeological legacy marking the prehistory of Peru and has made
it a valuable place for archaeologists from around the world to study. All of
this is relevant historic information to improve the construction of civilization. After all, we continue to live in a world with similar natural resources as
those societies in the past. We should not overlook the opportunity to better
New Horizons
155
ourselves and our social lives through the positive experiences that history
and archaeology offer us.
Finally, archaeology in Peru, the archaeology that fascinates people
across the world not just because of iconic sites like Machu Picchu or Sipn,
is an archaeology that is facing a very interesting future. A major challenge is
to preserve the immense wealth of archaeological sites and objects for future
generations. This means that we have to form new generations of professional archaeologists and and educate society to be responsible guardians of
our shared cultural patrimony. The information generated by archaeological
research can be a very valuable tool in these regards. Also, if archaeologists
can learn to temporarily stop being scientists at times and interact with
other people, it will be indispensible in changing the image of our profession
as too often absorbed in arcane pursuits and socially irrelevant activities.
Our generation and those that will come in the future, with our knowledge of
past roads crossed by our predecessors, will give the world the opportunity
to learn about the past for the future. All of us will share the achievements
of the ancient Andean peoples. Fortunately, Peruvian archaeology, it would
seem, has just started on this road.
156
Notes
Introduction
1We could cite any number of excellent publications on the history of
archaeology around the world. We mention just a few here: Trigger (1992,
2006), Daz-Andreu and Champion (1996), Kohl and Fawcett (1995), MoroAbadia (2007), Patterson (2002), Gran Aymerich ([1998] 2001), and Daniel
(1987).
2I view this book in the broad historiographical tradition of intellectual
history that has a long and distinguished presence in Peru in the twentieth
century (Aguirre and McEvoy 2008:23). Therefore, I am not just interested
in a history of ideas, but also want to comprehend how the various actors
dealt with and molded their particular historical circumstances. I want to
understand how the larger political, economic, and cultural contexts affected the development of the practice of archaeology and the creation of a
past in Peru.
3Here, the concept of the organic intellectual of Antonio Gramsci (1967) is
useful. The organic intellectual is one that emerges within a particular social
class to explain and justify its existence. Archaeologists are likewise understood in this sense, providing a historical justification for a class structure
and its corresponding ideology.
Chapter 1
1A huaca can be defined as a thing (object, feature on the landscape, water
source, and even human remains) that has a potential and or an actual force
recognized by Andean peoples. A huaca in this sense acquires a relationship
between humans that must be kept in equilibrium.
157
158
2For a treatment on how Colonial-period racism was perpetuated in the

Peruvian Republic, see Aparicio (1997), Callirgos (1993), Drinot (2006), and
Flores Galindo (1999).
3For an analysis of how the images in Paz Soldns Atlas promoted a view
of the Andes and the Indian as obstacles in the countrys progress, see
Mndez (2011:904).
4It is worth mentioning that Raimondi also provided descriptions of archaeological sites such as Huanuco Pampa and Chavn de Huntar (1874).
He visited this last site in early November 1860 (Villacorta 2006:65) and described the stela that now has his name. At his request, the stela was moved
to the Parque de la Exposicin in Lima in 1874. He also documented and
illustrated other sculptures, such as those in Recuay.
5In addition to the well-studied Chilean appropriation of Peruvian territories and economic resources, they also stole the archaeological heritage in
these areas. The sites and archaeological objects were appropriated in the
areas of Tarapac and Arica, areas that belonged to Peru prior to the conflict
(Gnger 2009).
6Tschudi was in Peru between 1848 and 1852 to collect antiquities for the
Museum of Neuchtel in Switzerland (Daz-Andreu 2007:91; Kaulicke 2002
2003).
7Following Kaulicke (20022003:81), there were two previous versions of the
Antigedades Peruanas by Rivero. The first from 1827 had only three pages; the
second from 1841 had 60 pages.
8But see Kaulicke (20022003) for a discussion of Tschudis contribution to
this particular book and to Peruvian archaeology in general.
9It should be mentioned that Rivero was hired in Paris by Simon Bolivars
government of Gran Colombia to lead the National Museum in Bogot
(Botero 2006:102). The National Museum was established as a Natural History
Museum in 1823, and was the first of its kind in the region (Botero 2006:109).
Rivero returned to Peru in 1826 after resigning that position.
10Squier arrived in Peru as Commissioner of the United States to solve the
existing conflict of the commercialization of guano between his country
and Peru. Having resolved that case, he conducted an extensive trip through
Peru and Bolivia that resulted in the publication of Peru: Incidents of Travel
and Exploration in the Land of the Incas (Squier 1877), a work that included
descriptions and illustrations of archaeological sites and objects in Peru
and Bolivia. Among the highlights, this book included the site and culture
of Tiwanaku and the Inca remains on the Islands of the Sun and Moon in
Notes
159
Lake Titicaca. A biography of Squier and his relation to anthropology and

archaeology is available from Barnhart (2005).
11Wieners contribution to Peruvian archaeology is available in Riviale (2003).
12Hutchinson, who was born in Ireland, served as a diplomat in the British
government. During his stay he explored Peru and published Two Years in
Peru, With Exploration of its Antiquities in 1873 (see Murray 2008).
13For a comprehensive list of travelers in the second half of the nineteenth
century, see Meja Xesspe (1967:xii ).
14Although the Swiss archaeologist Adolph Bandelier explored and excavated in Peru in 1892 and 1903, his focus was mainly archaeology and ethnology. Bandelier was a businessman originally from Switzerland and a resident
of Illinois (Fowler and Wilcox 2000:107). He was a disciple of Lewis Morgan
and conducted several archaeological excavations in the southwestern
United States.
15For an extensive review of their intellectual activity, see Tras las Huellas:
Dos Viajeros Alemanes en Tierras Latinoamericanas (Banco de la Repblica
and Biblioteca Luis ngel Arango 1996).
Chapter 2
1The complete name of this German scientist was Friedrich Maximiliano
Uhle Lorenz. I do not want to spend too much time discussing Uhles biography, but rather I wish to emphasize certain details of his work relevant to
this intellectual history. I recommend that the reader consult the following
sources: Rowe (1954), Linares Mlaga (1964), and Kaulicke (2010).
2See also such influential historians such as William Prescott, who suggested
a pre-Inca period in his majestic The Conquest of Peru ([1847] 1944:5), or Sebastin Lorente ([1876] 2005), who suggested various periods in Peruvian prehistory, the oldest being the Period of the Curacas followed by The Inca
Period. None of these timeframes were based on systematic archaeological
data.
3I thank Charles Stanish for providing a copy of Bandeliers diary from the
collections at the American Museum of Natural History.
4There have been a number of different international exhibitions since the
mid-nineteenth century (Quiza 2007). The first of these was the 1851 First
World Exhibition in London. After the International Exhibitions were established, the Ibero-American Exhibition (such as in Sevilla in 1929) and the Pan
American Exhibition were also held.
160
5The first Congreso Internacional de Americanistas was in Nancy, France,

in 1875.
6Uhle was named Assistant Secretary in the opening sessions of the vii Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, held in Berlin in 1888. He alternated
with Luschan, Seler, Steinen, and other prestigious internationalists of his
times. Uhle was commissioned to schedule the Congress. One of the lectures
he presented was on the relationship of the Chibcha language, the languages
of Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, the Talamanca of Costa Rica, and Panamanian Guaymi. One can see his ideas that culture traveled with language. This
method was applied throughout Europe in the study of the spread of IndoEuropean languages (e.g., see the Kultur Kreiss in the cultural geography of
Fritz Graebner (1911) and Friedrich Ratzel (19091911).
7One publication in the Berlin years, Kultur und Industrie Sudmerikanischer
Volken (18891890), was prepared from the archaeological and ethnological
materials in Leipzig collected by Reiss, Stbel, and Koppel throughout South
America. Finally, in 1892 he published Die Ruinenstatte von Tiahuanaco (Stbel and Uhle 1892), which was based on photographs and help from Stbel
between 1876 and 1877. This book proposed a pre-Inca society and later
served as the intellectual base of his stay in the Andes.
8The first studies that he did in Argentina and Bolivia focused on Aymara
and Quechua grammar. His training, you will recall, was originally in philology. Uhle received his doctorate in philosophy in 1880 with a specialty
in medieval Chinese. According to Rowe (1954), this seems to have been an
interest of his professor more than for Uhle, because he never wrote about
this subject again. Kaulicke (2010:10), in contrast, says that this was indeed a
subject that interested Uhle.
9Some of Uhles Pachacamac materials also made their way to Chicagos
Natural History Museum, later known as the Field Museum of Natural History.
10Although Cecilia Mndez (1996) proposes the concept of Creole nationalism, it should be noted that this could be an elite rather than a creole ideology because the latter label presupposes a homogeneous group. However,
this social group is united only in its economic and political interests to stay
in power.
11While there were previous attempts, such as that of Sebastin Lorente
([1876] 2005), these were derived from teleological suppositions rather than
causal explanations or empirical evidence.
12Before his nomination in 1902, Uhle had returned to the United States
to teach at Berkeley; he took advantage of the time to conduct excavations
Notes
161
with John C. Merriam at the Emeryville site near Berkeley (Uhle 1907). These
were recognized as the first scientific excavations in California, and Uhle
was able to recognize a chronological sequence through the materials. His
real interest in the shellmounds (like Ancn) began there in Emeryville,
and he worked on the Peruvian coast upon his return to Peru in late 1903
and 1904 with the economic sponsorship of Phoebe A. Hearst. While in Ancn, he decided to explore the Chancay Valley (Puerto de Chancay y Cerro
Trinidad) and the sites of spero and Puerto Supe. Returning to Lima, he
explored the cemeteries of Isla San Lorenzo. In 1905, he started new work in
in Puno, Cusco, Arequipa, Chala, Chavia, Acari (Conventillo, Warato, and
Lomas), Nazca, and Palpa (Kakatilla, La Mancha, Poroma, Tambo del Perro,
Estaquera, and Nanaska).
13It is curious that the Antiquities Act of the United States was passed in
1906.
14The Museo Nacional de Chile had existed since 1838; however, see Schell
(n.d.).
15Tacna at this time was still occupied by Chilean troops.
16During his stay in Lima in 1925, Jijn y Caamao also was in contact with
Alfred Kroeber and Julio C. Tello.
Chapter 3
1For instance, a great part of oil production in Peru was controlled by companies with American capital, such as the International Petroleum Company
(ipc), in the second half of the 1910s (Clayton 1998:192).
2Pedro Villar Crdova conducted some excavations in the 1920s and 1930s,
but these were more focused on ethnohistory. His most important work is
Arqueologa del Departamento de Lima (Villar Crdova [1935] 1984).
3Duccio Bonavia (2008:72) suggests that Tello was behind the first instance
in which a major in archaeology was instituted in Peru in 1926 at San Marcos University (also see Matos 1985:8, although he dates this to the 1930s and
1940s), and Katharina Schreiber (2006:197) links this institutionalization of
archaeology with the creation of the Archaeological Section of the Science
Faculty and John Rowes tenure at the Universidad San Cristbal de Abad
del Cusco in 1942. In both cases, one cannot say if this major was within
an established academic structure that gave it this status. The archaeology
major was created more recently in 1956 at San Marcos University when the
Anthropology Department (1956) was founded which included anthropology
162
and archaeology. The students in this Department studied together for four
years. In the fifth year, they split between those that wanted to be anthropologists or archaeologists (Bueno 2010:34).
4However, it would be some time before archaeology was included as a
major in Peruvian universities. This could be another factor that explains the
dependency of Peruvian scholars on foreign scholars for theory and method.
5At least until age 15, when Tellos father died. Later, an aunt was responsible
for providing financial support to finish secondary school, as was the director of his high school, Pedro Labarthe (Palma [1917] 1956).
6This position was announced publicly in 1924 at the xxi Congreso Internacional de Americanistas in Gteborg, where he proposed that the high
civilizations of the Americas were descended from the Maya, which in turn
originated in Asia.
7As Stefanie Gnger (2007:4) notes, this debate would culminate in 1928
when both researchers met in the xxiii Congreso Internacional de Americanistas in New York. At this meeting, Tello attended as the Peruvian representative and presented his paper Civilizacin Andina: Algunos Problemas
de la Arqueologa Peruana, in which he talked about his 1919 expedition and
about his ideas about the autonomous development of ancient Peruvian
civilization (Astuhuamn, personal communication, 2007), displacing Uhle
in the academic circles.
8Tello actively participated in the indigenista movement at the beginning
by joining the Asociacin Pro-Indgena, which he would leave in 1922 over
disagreements about the methodologies, theories, and policies that its leaders espoused. Tello felt that it was not an ethnic problem but a sociopolitical
and socioeconomic one derived from the European conquest (Del Castillo
and Moscoso 2002:167, 17980; Tello 1967b:51).
9The close relationship between Tello and Legua can be seen in his correspondence with Pedro Zulen (Del Castillo and Moscoso et al. 2002).
10Other South American examples can be found in Gnecco (2004), Joffr
(2007), Lpez Mazz (2004), Nastri (2004), Navarrete (2006), etc.
11For a greater discussion of the life of Kroeber, see Steward (1962) and Kroeber (1970).
Chapter 4
1It was founded in 1909 with the leadership of Pedro Zulen, Dora Mayer, and
Joaqun Capelo. Valcrcel joined soon after the Association was formed.
Notes
163
2Valcrcels university thesis was titled The Agrarian Question in Cusco.

3Interestingly, Giesecke met with Hiram Bingham and confirmed the existence of the ruins of Machu Picchu before the latter became famous from his
1911 campaign (Villela and de la Puente 2011:35).
4The site had already been described and registered by Peruvian and British
travelers (see Aguilar 2011 for more information).
5For example, this is what he was thinking about archaeology in 1920:
Whatever object, as insignificant as it is, contains some facts to be revealed.
Our precolumbian history lacks documents; but it possess a copious amount
of monuments that give us important information to restore a considerable
part of our past (Valcrcel 1981:214).
6A connection that was later examined by Paul Goldstein (2005:311).
7El Partido Unin Revolucionaria (pur) supported Snchez Cerro during
the democratic process. This brief period has been explored by Tirso Molinari (2009), who described a society of fascist-minded groups in 1930s Lima.
Chapter 5
1With the exception of the Mariteguis attempts, such as the 7 Ensayos de
Interpretacin de la Realidad Peruana in 1928.
2The contradiction between apra s discourse and practice may explain why,
according to its policy of pursuing domestic growth through capitalism to
expand the countrys bourgeoisie and, consequently, raise the standard of
life of the proletariat.
3Years before, the ruling class had shown sympathy for the Italian and Spanish fascism, especially during the government of Snchez Cerro in the 1930s.
4Nevertheless, during the mandate of General Manuel A. Odra (19491956)
and under the Internal Security Law, a new wave of repression against apra
and the Communist Party began (Pease 1995:213).
5Although North American archaeologists rejected Tellos diffusionist theories (Willey [1951] 1970), many used his same assumptions. As such, Tello had
begun to explain the development of Andean societies, ordering these into
cultural historical sequences.
6An explanation of the political context in which Bennett worked at Tiwanaku is found in Loza (2008).
7As mentioned earlier in this book, he was one of the proponents of neoevolutionism.
164
8Bennett likewise spoke of periods and not cultures.

9Although in these decades excavations proliferated to build cultural sequences, Uhle had started this trend at Pachacamac as early as 1896.
10It is important to remember that Muelle had been part of the Vir Project
between 1946 and 1967 (Arqueolgicas 1974:4).
Chapter 6
1This political phenomenon was found in other South American countries.
As Frank Rodrguez (2012:129) notes: In the decade of the 1950s in the 20th
century, a number of regimes proliferated which can be called development
militarists or development dictators. These military governments, among
the noted being the generals Manuel Odra in Per, Gustavo Rojas Pinilla
in Colombia, Juscelino Kubitschek in Brazil, and Marcos Prez Jimnez in
Venezuela, were characterized in general terms and leading a modernization
process with an industrial base, urbanization, a large role for the state in the
economy, and the defense of private property.
2The US Department of War was reorganized into the Department of Defense in 1949. A War Department in fact did not exist at this time.
3For example, this was also reflected in the financial support that the
United States provided to the Peruvian military. Flores Galindo (1999) notes:
Between 1950 and 1968, Peru received 81.9 million dollars of military aid,
after Brazil and Chile, the third highest beneficiaryif one may use that
euphemism for us aidto the entire continent. During these years, more
than 4,000 officers had participated in the Military Assistance Program
(Flores Galindo 1999:9).
4One of the last phrases in the 1948 message to the nation was: to save Peru
from the chaos of the disastrous policies of the [previous] Government and
the subversive ideas of apra (Odra 1948).
5Rowes bibliography lists three articles for 1942 in the city of Cusco; one
of the last was titled Sitios Histricos en la regin de Pucara, Puno in the
Revista del Instituto Arqueolgico of Universidad del Cusco (Rowe 1942b).
This would also be his first work on the circum-Titicaca Basin area.
6A clear example of this was the early use of carbon 14 dating to ground his
own ideas (Rowe 1945).
7It is hard to believe that with the existence of carbon 14 dating he had not
yet abandoned these ideas about cultural streams mediated through typical elements. This fact compelled Rowe (1966) to write an article about it.
Notes
165
8Although, as he himself stated, the sequence had already been tested by

Uhle in 1903 and then by Kroeber and Strong in 1924, at the height of diffusionism (Rowe [1962] 1967:5).
Chapter 7
1Murra was sent to Chicago by his father in 1934 to avoid the intense antiSemitic atmosphere in Romania (Barnes 2009b:4).
2He takes this trip during World War ii and, according to Monica Barnes
(2009a:viii), his trip to Ecuador was also linked to US intelligence services.
3In regard to the data that he recovered from both Visitas, we can quote
Murra himself: The two Visitas had much in common. Both were written
to provide empirical information collected in the field, informants whose
knowledge came from their deep roots in the Andean experience. . . . In both
cases, some of the informants were adults at the time of European invasion.
In both zones, some of them such as Vilcacutipa in Ilave or Xagua from Chaglla had participated in Inca activities at the state level and not just among
their own ethnic groups. Both Visitas are complementary: that of the Chupachu has the advantage to provide domestic information, house by house,
while the Lupaqa emphasize the roles of the kings. Los Chupachu speak
Quechua; los Lupaqa speak Aymara. The first had contacts with the warm
lands, the second tell us about the puna. The Visita de Chupachu offers more
material over the relationships between an ethnic group with Tawantinsuyu;
that of the Lupaqa much more about the relationships of their relationship
with the colonial European regime (Murra 1967:383 in Marzal 1998:360).
4While in Castro et al. (2000) Murra is seen as independent of this influence
while writing his thesis, it is clear that his ideas about economic anthropology and the concepts of reciprocity and redistribution in the Inca world fall
clearly within the framework of Polanyi and his followers.
5In his book Man Makes Hinself ([1936] 1996), Gordon Childe proposed
his Neolithic and Urban revolutions. His article The Urban Revolution
(Childe 1950; see also Childe [1952] 2004, [1954] 2004) is a work that would
inspire generations of archaeologists to look in different parts of the world
for evidence for these profound transformations (Bonavia 1991:182; Castro et
al. 2003; Smith 2009).
6According to Osmar Gonzles (2011), the view of the indianista has understood the Indian as an ornament, a part of the landscape, while those
that explain [the Indian] taking into account his existential social conditions
are referred to in the literature as indigenistas (Gonzles 2011:737).
166
Chapter 8
1By 1930, Tellos influence as a preeminent intellectual in government circles
began to diminish. For example, the Patronato Nacional de Arqueologa that
he founded was taken over by Luis Valcrcel, who not only did not help Tello,
but criticized his work (Prieto 2011).
2It is significant to note that this place had been Tellos sanctuary (in fact,
he asked to be buried there).
3In another publication, I provide an extensive analysis of this book (Tantalen 2004).
4In a 1992 study on the teaching of archaeology in Peru, we find that although
Lumbreras work (1974b, 1981a) was the most popular among students, his
theoretical orientation was not reflected in the theses or other published
work by students (Bonavia and Matos 1992:79).
5As Lumbreras himself declared in the prologue to the second edition of his
book La Arqueologa como Ciencia Social (1981a:9): This book goes to press
at a time in Peru when a strong anti-marxist currents is developing and
when certain [right wing] dogmatic features are found in sectors of the university that have lost the revolutionary perspective in the last few years; this
apparently has happened in other countries as well. The rest of the final
paragraph makes an interesting analysis of the circumstances in which
Marxism developed in Peru. However, it also points out paths that were not
followed consistently by several of Lumbreras supporters.
Chapter 9
1The research project headed by Proulx had a cultural historical orientation
quite similar to the Vir Project (Proulx 1968:1015). Moreover, during the
first season they were only in Nepea Valley from June to August 1967 (Proulx
1968), then returned in 1971 and in 1979. They project was quite sporadic,
with few members. As Proulx says: In 1967 I began a multi-year systematic
archaeological survey of the Nepea Valley on the north coast of Peru. My
selection of this valley for research was prompted by Junius Bird of the American Museum of Natural History who was involved in the planning of a major
project there, focusing on the clearing of the Moche site of Paamarca. I was
encouraged to precede this work with a survey to determine the extent and
nature of the various cultures in Nepea. Although funding for Birds project
never materialized, I continued my survey over a period of almost 18 years,
with trips to Peru in 1967, 1971, 1979. My graduate student, Richard Daggett,
Notes
167
continued the survey during 198081, writing his dissertation on The Early
Horizon Occupation of the Nepea Valley, North Central Coast of Peru in
1985 (Proulx n.d.).
2As Jeffrey Parsons and Ramiro Matos (2002:viii) note: Timothy Earle was
a graduate student at the University of Michigan in the late 1960s and early
1970s. As an undergraduate student at Harvard in the mid-1960s, Earle had
worked in the Lurin Valley on the Peruvian central Coast in a survey project
directed by Thomas Patterson. Following his dissertation research in Hawaii,
Earles interests gravitated back to the Andes after the mid-1970s.
3Another research project with this ethnoarchaeological focus is one by
Kent Flannery, Joyce Marcus, and Robert Reynolds, which was published as
The Flocks of the Wamani: A Study of Llama Herders on the Punas of Ayacucho,
Peru (Flannery et al. 1989).
4See the Collasuyo Archaeological Research Institutes website at http://
collasuyo.wordpress.com/.
Chapter 10
1Relative autonomy because the police had been operating at San Marcos
University since 1987, arresting large numbers of students.
2The work of Anbal Apaico (2012) offers an acute account of what happened
in this last university.
3A classic solution to the dire economic circumstances in that decade was
the proliferation of charitable activities called polladas, which raised money
with a dance party where chicken and plenty of beer were consumed. A detailed study of this anthropological phenomenon can be found in Bjar and
lvarez (2010).
4Phrase spoken by Alberto Fujimori in his lecture before the Asociacin de
Exportadores (adex) a short time before his self-coup.
5In this frontal assault, the rondas campesinas played a very important
role ( for example, see Fumerton 2001).
6Although both subversive groups contributed their share of violence during the 1980s and early 1990s, and their individual stories differ, the case of
mrta deserves a bit more detailed study than those currently available. One
such work is that of Mario Meza (2011).
7Also see Gorriti (2008); Rnique (2003); Roncagliolo (2005); Starn (1995);
and Stern (1998).
168
8It is important to note that until late 1980, Fujimori served as Dean and
Rector of the Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina and had been president of the National Assembly of Rectors. Thus, once he became president
of the country, he fully understood how the Peruvian university system functioned.
9As Rubn Quiroz (2005:88) notes: . . . it is the attack in Calle Tarata, in a
Lima neighborhood as fashionable as Miraflores, that served as a pretext for
Fujimori to intervene in the Universities.
10The second floor of the dining hall of the university center at San Marcos
was the place chosen by the army to set up headquarters.
11 In this same decade, many agents from the sin (Servicio de Inteligencia
Nacional) were hidden among the student population (also see Ponce 2002:
33).
12In July 18, 1992, the so called Grupo Colina, with the support of the army,
detained a professor and nine students on the campus of the Universidad
Enrique Guzmn y Valle La Cantuta. A year later, in 1993, their remains
were found in the Chavilca Quebrada in Cieneguilla.
13Nevertheless, as Degregori and Sandoval (2009:48) note, in spite of the
proposal of neoliberal reform of the public university, in the end we were
left with the same old corporatist and corrupt practices of the university
leadership, effectively truncating any modernization.
14According to Vargas (2005): . . . The government and the Congress, dominated by Fujimori legislators, passed law 26457 ordering the reorganization
of two important national universities in Lima. Its 10th article states The
process of reorganization referred to in this Law will begin with the Universidad Enrique Guzmn y Valle and the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, and authorizes the Executive Branch through Supreme Decrees to
designate Reorganized Commissions, positions that were made up by faculty that supported the intervention and were allied with Fujimori. At San
Marcos University, they named such a commission with little or no academic
stature that, while not military people, were happy to assume that role.
15An indicator of the decline in publications by American archaeologists on
Peru can be seen in a review of the journal Latin American Antiquity. In that
decade, there were a total of 187 articles. Of these, only 39 were about Peru, 11
of which were from the highlands (Cajamarca, Junn, Cusco, and Puno) while
the bulk (28) were from the coast.
16A deeper sociological analysis of that human capital is beyond the scope
of this book.
Notes
169
17Regarding the meager funding by the government for public universities,

especially in the 1990s, see Sandoval (2002a) and Degregori and Sandoval
(2009).
18See Pea et al. (2011) for a database describing the pace of scientific productivity at San Marcos in the last few years.
Chapter 11
1The current constitution only permits a single, five-year term for presidents. An individual can be re-elected after sitting out one term.
2According to the data provided by this university, we see that the number
of licenciatura theses have grown substantially in the last several years.
3In spite of this huge mission, it has a wholly inadequate budget.
4See http://www.caralperu.gob.pe/vista/historia/index.php.
5All of these sites are administered by the Naylamp-Lambayeque Executive
Unit, created in 2006. Likewise, an Executive Unit oversees the important
museums associated with these sites, most notably the Museo Tumbas Reales
de Sipn.
Conclusion
1 In countries as Argentina and Chile, for instance, some indigenous communities asked for repatriation of human remains and objects extracted from
prehispanic sites because they perceived them as their ancestral legacy and
part of their ethnic identity (Gnecco and Ayala 2010b:34).
170
References
Adams, Richard. (1960) 1979. El Origen de las Ciudades. In Biologa y Cultura: Introduccin a la Antropologa Biolgica y Social, 22936. Madrid: Selecciones de
Scientific American.
Adrianzn, Alberto, ed. 2011. Apogeo y Crisis de la Izquierda Peruana: Hablan Sus
Protagonistas. Lima: idea Internacional/Universidad Antonio Ruiz de Montoya.
Aguilar, Miguel. 2004. La Universidad Peruana y los Partidos Polticos: Medios, Fines
y Corrupcin. Available at http://antropologia2004unfv.pe.tripod.com/universi
dadypartidos.htm (accessed January 5, 2014).
_____. 2006. Surgimiento de las Sociedades Complejas en los Andes Centrales: Una
Perspectiva desde el Valle de Huaura, Per. Report submitted for professional
archaeology license, Professional School for Archaeology and Anthropology,
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal. Available at http://archaeo.info/craig/
modules/Downloads/docs/Monografia_final_Aguilar%202006.pdf.
_____. 2011. Entre Dilogos y Repatriaciones. Reparacin Colonial por la Memoria y
Preservacin de Machu Picchu. Antpoda 12:21134.
Aguirre, Carlos, and Augusto Ruiz. 2011. La Historia es una Necesidad Colectiva:
Entrevista a Alberto Flores Galindo (1982). Histrica 35(1):187209.
Aguirre-Morales, Manuel. 2005. La Arqueologa Social el Per. Oxford, uk: British
Archaeological Reports.
Aguirre, Carlos, and Carmen Mc Evoy. 2008. Introduccin. In Intelectuales y Poder:
Ensayos en Torno a la Repblica de las Letras en el Per e Hispanoamrica (ss. xvi
xx), edited by Carlos Aguirre and Carmen Mc Evoy, 13-43. Lima: ifea/Instituto
Riva Agero.
Alburquerque, Germn. 2010. Los Intelectuales Latinoamericanos, la Guerra Fra y
la Revista Amrica Latina de Mosc (19761992). Revista Universum 25(1):1226.
Alcalde, Javier, Carlos del guila, and Fernando Fujita. 2001. Nuevas Evidencias en
Chincha: Nota Preliminar sobre Contextos de la poca Wari. Boletn de Arqueologa pucp 5:54354.
_____. 2007. . . . El Reposo del Badilejo. . . . Reflexiones sobre Conceptos, Aplicaciones y
Realidades de la Arqueologa Actual. Lima: Orbis Tertius/Instituto Chincha.
171
172
References
Aldenderfer, Mark. 2011. Balances y Perspectivas del Periodo Arcaico en la Regin del
Altiplano. In Arqueologa de la Cuenca del Titicaca, Per, edited by Luis Flores,
and and Henry Tantalen, 2739. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos/
ucla Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Aljovn, Cristbal, and Eduardo Cavieres. 2005. Reflexiones para un Anlisis Histrico
de Chile-Per en el Siglo xix y en la Guerra del Pacfico. In Chile-Per; Per-Chile
en el Siglo xix. La Formacin del Estado, la Economa y la Sociedad, edited by
Eduardo Cavieres and Cristbal Aljovin, 1124. Valparaso, Chile: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaso.
Anders, M. 1981. Investigation of State Storage Facilities in Pampa Grande, Peru.
Journal of Field Archaeology 8(4):391404.
Anderson, Benedict. (1991) 1997. Comunidades Imaginadas. Reflexiones sobre el Origen
y la Difusin del Nacionalismo. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
Angelo, Dante. 2005. La Arqueologa en Bolivia. Reflexiones Sobre la Disciplina a
Inicios del Siglo xxi. Arqueologa Suramericana 1(2):185211.
Apaico, Anbal. 2012. Una Visin de la Arqueologa Ayacuchana. Available at http://
arkeologianibal.blogspot.com/2012/02/una-vision-de-la-arqueologia-ayacucha
na.html.
Aparicio, Guillermo. 1997. El Racismo en los Andes Peruanos. In vi Jornadas Lascasianas: La Problemtica del Racismo en los Umbrales del Siglo xxi, 89112. Mxico
City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurdicas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico.
Arguedas, Jos Mara. (1966) 2007. Dioses y Hombres de Huarochir. Narracin Quechua recogida por Francisco de vila [1598?]. Lima: Universidad Antonio Ruiz de
Montoya.
Arguedas, Jos Mara, Jorge Bravo Bresani, Alberto Escobar, Henri Favre, Jos Matos
Mar, Jos Miguel Oviedo, Anbal Quijano, and Sebastin Salazar Bondy. 1985. He
vivido en vano? Mesa Redonda sobre Todas las Sangres. 23 de junio de 1965. Lima:
iep.
Arkush, Elizabeth. 2011. Hillforts of the Ancient Andes: Colla Warfare, Society, and Landscape. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Arnold, Bettina. 1990. The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi
Germany. Antiquity 64:46478.
Arqueolgicas. 1974. Homenaje al Dr. Jorge C. Muelle. Arqueolgicas 15:35.
Asencio, Ral. 2012. Nosotros los Muchik: Turismo, Arqueologa, Antropologa y
Discursos de Identidad Colectiva en la Costa Norte del Per (19872009). In El
Turismo es cosa de Pobres? Patrimonio Cultural, Pueblos Indgenas y Nuevas Formas de Turismo en Amrica Latina, edited by Ral Asencio and Beatriz Prez,
3560. Asociacin Canaria de Antropologa/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Available at http://www.pasosonline.org/Publicados/pasosoedita/PSEdita8.pdf.
Astuhuamn, Csar. 2004. El Becario Julio C. Tello. Boletn ifp 2:1415.
References
173
Astuhuamn, Csar, and Richard Dagget. 2005. Julio Csar Tello Rojas: Una
Biografa. In Paracas Primera Parte, Julio C. Tello, 1761. Lima: Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Ballart, Josep. 1997. El Patrimonio Histrico y Arqueolgico. Valor y Uso. Barcelona: Ariel.
Ballart, Josep, and Jordi Tresserras. 2001. Gestin del Patrimonio Cultural. Barcelona:
Ariel.
Banco de la Repblica andBiblioteca Luis ngel Arango. 1996. Tras las Huellas: Dos
Viajeros Alemanes en Tierras Latinoamericanas. Bogot, Colombia: Biblioteca
Luis ngel Arango. Available at http://www.banrepcultural.org/blaavirtual/his
toria/hue/indice.htm (accessed December 17, 2013).
Baquerizo, Manuel. 1974. Emilio Choy y su Influencia en el Per. In Emilio Choy:
Antropologa e Historia 1:xxixxv. Lima: unmsm.
Bardavio, Antonio, and Paloma Gonzles Marcn. 2003. Objetos en el Tiempo. Las
Fuentes Materiales en la Enseanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Bardella, Gianfranco. 1989. Un Siglo en la Vida Econmica del Per. 18891989. Lima:
Banco de Crdito del Per.
Barnes, Monica. 2009a. Editors Preface. Andean Past 9:vxii.
_____. 2009b. John Victor Murra (August 24, 1916-October 16, 2006): An Interpretative Biography. Andean Past 9:163.
Barnhart, Terry. 2005. Ephraim George Squier and the Development of American Anthropology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bastian, Adolph. 18781889. Die Culturlander des Alten America. Berlin: Weidmann.
Bawden, Garth. 1977. Galindo and the Nature of the Middle Horizon in the Northern
Coastal Peru. PhD. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
_____. 1982a. Galindo: A Study in Cultural Transition during the Middle Horizon.
In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by M. E. Moseley and K. Day, 285320.
Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press.
_____. 1982b. Community Organization Reflected by the Household: A Study of PreColumbian Social Dynamics. Journal of Field Archaeology 9(2):16581.
Bazn, Augusto. 2011. Situacin del Departamento de Arqueologa, Sus Implicancias
en la Formacin de Pre Grado y Desafos del Estudiantado por Cambiar Estas
no muy Gratas Realidades. Paper presented at Semana de Arqueologa 2011: El
Desarrollo Histrico de la Arqueologa en San Marcos, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, November 2125, Lima.
Bazn, Augusto, Alex Gonzles, Elizabeth Cruzado, and Michiel Zegarra. 2008.
Semana de Arqueologa 2005: Arqueologa para el Desarrollo: Propuestas, perspectivas y conclusiones. Supay 6:2426.
Bjar, Hctor. 1973. Las Guerrillas de 1965. Balance y Perspectiva. Biblioteca Peruana.
Lima: peisa.
174
References
Bjar, Hctor, and Magno lvarez. 2010. Las Polladas: Una Estrategia de Sobrevivencia en poca de Crisis Econmica y Poltica. Lima, 19802003. Investigaciones
Sociales 14(24):25983.
Benavides, Hugo. 2005. Los Ritos de la Autenticidad: Indgenas, Pasado y Estado
Ecuatoriano. Arqueologa Suramericana 1(1):525.
Bennett, Wendell. 1943. The Position of Chavn in Andean Sequences. Proceedings
American Philosophical Society 86(2):32327.
_____. 1944. The North Highlands of Peru: Excavations in the Callejn de Huaylas and
at Chavn de Huntar. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 39(1), New York.
_____. 1946. Part 2. The Central Andes. In Handbook of South American Indians,
Volume 2, edited by Julian Steward, 61176. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
_____. 1948. The Peruvian Co-Tradition. In Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology,
Memoirs of Society for American Archaeology 4, edited by Wendell Bennett. Supplement to American Antiquity 13(4)17.
_____. 1950. Cultural Unity and Disunity in the Titicaca Basin. American Antiquity
41(2):8998.
Bennett, Wendell, and Junius Bird. 1949. Andean Culture History. New York: American
Museum of Natural History.
Bermann, Marc. 1994. Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia.
Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press.
Betalleluz, Betford. 2003. La Imagen de la Historia Nacional Peruana. Hispanistas,
Indigenistas y Marxistas. Periodificaciones, Proyectos y Propuestas de la Historiografa Peruana del Siglo xx. Dilogos 7:21934.
Binford, Lewis R. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):21725.
Boletn. 1999. La Historia Recordada. El Dr. Luis G. Lumbreras Rememora su Labor
al Frente del Museo. Boletn del Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la unmsm
9. Available at http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bibvirtual/publicaciones/antropolo
gia/1999_N09/historia_recordada.htm.
Bonavia, Duccio. 1991. Per, Hombre e Historia. De los Orgenes al Siglo xv. Lima:
Edubanco.
_____. 2004. Jorge C. Muelle. Semblanza del Hombre y del Arquelogo. Revista
Histrica xli: 21337.
_____. 2008. John Howland Rowe, el Gran Peruanista. Revista Histrica xliii:7195.
Bonavia, Duccio, and Ramiro Matos. 1992. Enseanza de la Arqueologa en el Per.
Lima: Fomciencias.
Botero, Clara. 2006. El Redescubrimiento del Pasado Prehispnico de Colombia: Viajeros, Arquelogos y Coleccionistas. Bogot, Colombia: Instituto Colombiano de
Antropologa e Historia/Universidad de los Andes.
Bowen, Sally, and Jane Holligan. 2003. El Espa Imperfecto. La Telaraa Siniestra de
Vladimiro Montesinos. Lima: peisa.
References
175
Brothwell, Don, and Eric Higgs. (1969) 1980. Ciencia en Arqueologa. Madrid: fce.
Bruhns, Karen, and Nancy Kelker. 2010. Faking the Ancient Andes. Walnut Creek, ca:
Left Coast Press.
Bueno, Alberto. 2003. Pachacamac: El Sitio del Poder de la Tierra y Max Uhle (2503-1856/11-05-1944). In Pachacamac: Informe de la Expedicin Peruana William
Pepper de 1896, edited by Max Uhle. Lima: Fondo editorial de la Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
_____. 2010. Julio C. Tello y la Arqueologa del Per en la Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos. Investigaciones Sociales 14(25):1746.
Burga, Manuel, and Alberto Flores Galindo. 1984. Apogeo y Crisis de la Repblica Aristocrtica. Lima: Ediciones Rikchay Per.
Burger, Richard. 1989. An Overview of Peruvian Archaeology (19761986). Annual
Review of Anthropology 18:3769.
Burger, Richard, and Lucy Salazar-Burger. 1991. The Second Season of Investigations at the Initial Period Center of Cardal, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology
18(3):27596.
Burt, Jo-Marie. 2006. Quien Habla es Terrorista: The Political Use of Fear in Fujimoris Peru. Latin American Research Review 41(3):3262.
_____. 2009. Violencia y Autoritarismo en el Per. Bajo la Sombra de Sendero Luminoso y la Dictadura de Fujimori. Lima: iep.
Cabello, Paz. 1993. El Museo de Amrica. Anales del Museo de Amrica 1:1121.
Callirgos, Juan Carlos. 1993. El Racismo: La Cuestin del Otro (y de Uno). Lima: desco.
Canziani, Jos. 1992. Arquitectura y Urbanismo en el Periodo Paracas en el Valle de
Chincha. Gaceta Arqueolgica Andina 22:87117.
Castillo, Luis Jaime. 2001. Rafael Larco y la Cultura Mochica. Arqueolgicas 25:11722.
_____. 2013. 110 Aos de Arqueologa Mochica: Cambios Paradigmticos y Nuevas
Perspectivas. In Historia de la Arqueologa en el Per del Siglo xx, edited by Henry
Tantalen and Csar Astuhuamn, 157205. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios
Andinos/Institute of Andean Research.
Castro, Victoria, Carlos Aldunate, and Jorge Hidalgo, eds. 2000. Nispa Ninchis: Conversaciones con John Murra. Lima: iep/iar.
Castro, Pedro, Trinidad Escoriza, Joaqum Oltra, Montserrat Otero, and Encarna
Sanahuja. 2003. Qu es una Ciudad? Aportaciones para su Definicin desde
la Prehistoria. Scripta Nova Revista Electrnica de Geografa y Ciencias Sociales
vii:(146):10.
Childe, Gordon. 1926. The Aryans: A Study of lndo-European Origins. London: P. Kegan.
_____. (1936) 1996. Man Makes Himself. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
_____. 1950. The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review 21:317.
_____. (1952) 2004. Old World Prehistory: Neolithic. In Foundations of Social Archaeology. Selected Readings of V. Gordon Childe, edited by Thomas Patterson and
Charles Orser, 11738. Walnut Creek, ca: AltaMira Press.
176
References
Childe, Gordon. (1954) 2004. Early Forms of Society. In Foundations of Social Archaeology. Selected Readings of V. Gordon Childe. Foundations of Social Archaeology.
Selected Readings of V. Gordon Childe, edited by Thomas Patterson and Charles
Orser, 15569. Walnut Creek, ca: AltaMira Press.
Chirinos, Patricia. 2006. La Imagen del Imperio: Los Estudios Sobre Wari en la Arqueologa Peruana. Arkeos 1(3):3149.
Choy Ma, Emilio. (1960) 1979. La Revolucin Neoltica y los Orgenes de la Civilizacin Peruana. Antropologa e Historia 1:12288. Lima: unmsm.
_____. (1961) 1979. El Trabajo en el Origen del Hombre Americano. Antropologa e
Historia, 1:97112. Lima: unmsm.
Cieza de Len, Pedro. (1553) 2005. Crnica del Per. Caracas: Ayacucho.
Clark, Grahame. (1947) 1980. Arqueologa y Sociedad. Madrid: Akal.
Clarke, David. (1968) 1984. Arqueologa Analtica. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
_____. 1977. Spatial Archaeology. London: Academic Press.
Clayton, Lawrence. 1998. Estados Unidos y el Per: 18001995. Lima: cepei.
COARPE (Colegio de Arquelogos del Per). 2014. Miembros de la Orden. Available
at http://www.coarpe.org/miembros.php (accessed January 4, 2014).
Collier, Donald, John Murra, with Sharat K. Roy. 1943. Survey and Excavations in
Southern Ecuador. Chicago, IL: Field Museum of Natural History Publication 528.
Coloma, Csar. 1994. Los Inicios de la arqueologa en el Per, o, Antigedades Peruanas de Mariano Eduardo de Rivero. Lima: Instituto Latinoamericano de Cultura
y Desarrollo.
Comisin de la Verdad y Reconciliacin. 2003. Informe Final. Lima: cvr.
_____. 2004. Hatun Willakuy. Versin Abreviada del Informe Final de la Comisin de
La Verdad y Reconciliacin. Lima: cvr.
Contreras, Carlos, and Marcos Cueto. 2007. Historia del Per Contemporneo. Lima:
iep.
Cotler, Julio. 1978. Clases, Estado y Nacin en el Per. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
Cuadernos del Archivo Tello. 2005. Arqueologa del Valle de Nepea. Excavaciones en
Cerro Blanco y Punkur. Lima: Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Cueto, Marcos. 1992. Apogeo y crisis de la Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima: 18881940.
Dynamis 12:3545.
DAltroy, Terence, and Christine Hastorf. 2002. Preface. In Empire and Domestic
Economy, edited by Terence DAltroy and Christine Hastorf, xiiixv. New York:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Daggett, Richard. 1994. The Paracas Mummy Bundles of the Great Necropolis of
Wari Kayan: A History. Andean Past 4:6975.
References
177
Daggett, Richard. 2009. Julio C. Tello. An Account of His Rise to Prominence in

Peruvian Archaeology. In The Life and Writings of Julio C. Tello, Americas First
Indigenous Archaeologist, edited by Richard Burger, 754. Iowa City: University of
Iowa Press.
De La Cadena, Marisol. 2007. La Produccin de Otros Conocimientos y sus Tensiones: de una Antropologa Andinista a la Interculturalidad? In Saberes Perifricos: Ensayos sobre la Antropologa en Amrica Latina, edited by Carlos Ivn Degregori and Pablo Sandoval, 10752. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Daniel, Glyn. 1987. Un Siglo y Medio de Arqueologa. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura
Econmica.
De la Torre, Juan Carlos. 2005. Arqueologa y Sociedad en la Costa Sur del Per.
Dinmica de Ocupacin y Espacios Sociales en la Sociedad Paracas (1100-100
ane). Excavaciones Arqueolgicas en La Puntilla. In Amrica Latina, Realidades
Diversas, edited by Laura Mameli and Eleonora Muntaola, 7689. Barcelona:
Casa Amrica Catalunya/Universidad Autnoma de Barcelona.
De Munter, Koen. 2010. Tejiendo Reciprocidades: John Murra y el Contextualizar
entre los Aymara Contemporneos. Chungara 42(1):24755.
Del guila, Carlos. (1998) 2007. Arqueologa y Gremio. In El Reposo del Badilejo:
Reflexiones sobre Conceptos, Aplicaciones y Realidades de la Arqueologa Actual,
edited by Javier Alcalde, Carlos del guila, and Fernando Fujita, 1568. Lima:
Orbis Tertius/Instituto Chincha.
_____. 2010. La Vigencia de un Mtodo en Arqueologa: Sobre la Propuesta de Periodificacin Cultural del rea Andina de John H. Rowe. Arqueologa y Sociedad
21:10918.
Degregori, Carlos Ivn. (1990) 2011. El Surgimiento de Sendero Luminoso. Ayacucho
19691979. Third edition. Lima: iep.
_____. (2000) 2011. La Dcada de la Antipoltica. Auge y Huida de Alberto Fujimori y
Vladimiro Montesinos. Lima: iep.
Degregori, Carlos Ivn, and Pablo Sandoval. 2009. Antropologa y Antroplogos en el
Per: La Comunidad Acadmica de Ciencias Sociales bajo la Modernizacin Neoliberal. Lima: iep/clacso.
Deniz, Jos. 1978. La Revolucin por la Fuerza Armada. Salamanca, Spain: Sgueme.
Del Castillo Morn, Miguel ngel, and Mara Moscoso Carbajal. 2002. El Chino y el
Indio: Pedro S. Zulen y Julio C. Tello, Una Amistad del Novecientos a travs de
su Correspondencia, 19141922. Arqueologa y Sociedad 14:165188.
Daz-Andreu, Margarita. 2001a. Guest Editors Introduction: Nationalism and Archaeology. Nations and Nationalism 7(4):42940.
_____. 2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past. Oxford, uk: Oxford University Press.
Daz-Andreu, Margarita, and Timothy Champion, eds. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: ucl Press.
178
References
Diez de San Miguel, Garci. (1567) 1964. Una Apreciacin Etnolgica de la Visita. In
Visita hecha a la Provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez de San Miguel en el ao 1567
por Garci Diez de San Miguel, translated by Waldemar Espinoza Soriano, 42144.
Lima: Casa de la Cultura del Per.
Donnan, Christopher, and Carol Mackey. 1978. Ancient Burial Patterns of the Moche
Valley, Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Drinot, Paulo. 2006. Construccin de Nacin, Racismo y Desigualdad: Una Perspectiva Histrica del Desarrollo Institucional en el Per. In Construir Instituciones:
Democracia, Desarrollo y Desigualdad en el Per desde 1980, edited by John Crabtree, 1131. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per/Universidad del Pacfico/
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Durand, Francisco. 1996. El Fenmeno Fujimori y la Crisis de los Partidos. Revista
Mexicana de Sociologa 58(1):97120.
Erickson, Clark. 2010. Max Uhle en Filadelfia (18971899). In Max Uhle (18561944):
Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras, edited by Peter Kaulicke, Manuela
Fischer, Peter Masson, and Gregor Wolff, 93108. Lima: Pontificia Universidad
Catlica del Per.
Espinoza, Waldemar. 1995. Luis E. Valcrcel, el Indigenista e Incaista. Ciencias Sociales 1(1):6982.
Estete, Miguel de. (1534) 1891. La Relacin del Viaje que Hizo el Seor Capitn Hernando Pizarro por Mandado del Seor Gobernador, su Hermano, Desde el Pueblo
de Caxamalca Parcama, y de all Jauja. In Francisco de Xerez: Verdadera Relacin de la Conquista del Per, 12149. Madrid: Establecimiento tipogrfico de
Juan Cayetano Garca.
Evans, Clifford. 1968. Rafael Larco Hoyle: 19011966. American Antiquity 33(2):2336.
Fernndez Martnez, Vctor. 2005. Una Arqueologa Crtica: Ciencia, tica y Poltica en
la Construccin del Pasado. Barcelona: Crtica.
Fischer, Manuela. 2010. La Misin de Max Uhle para el Museo Real de Etnologa en
Berln (18921895): Entre las Ciencias Humboldtianas y la Arqueologa Americana. In Max Uhle (18561944): Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras, edited by Peter Kaulicke, Manuela Fischer, Peter Masson, and Gregor Wolff, 4962.
Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
Flannery, Kent, Joyce Marcus, and Robert Reynolds. 1989. The Flocks of the Wamani:
A Study of Llama Herders on the Punas of Ayacucho, Peru. New York: Academic
Press.
Flores Galindo, Alberto. 1999. La Tradicin Autoritaria: Violencia y Democracia en el
Per. Lima: sur, Casa de Estudios del Socialismo/aprodeh.
_____. (2005) 2010. Buscando un Inca: Identidad y Utopa en los Andes. Lima: El Comercio.
Fournier, Patricia. 1999. La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: Caracterizacin de
una Posicin Terica Marxista. In Sed Non Satiata: Teora Social en la Arqueologa
Latinoamericana Contempornea, edited by Andrs Zarankin and Flix Acuto,
1732. Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Tridente.
References
179
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Microfsica del Poder. Madrid: La Piqueta.

Fowler, Dan, and David Wilcox. 2000. De Thomas Jefferson a la Conferencia de Pecos: Las Cambiantes Agendas Antropolgicas en el Suroeste de Norteamrica.
Relaciones 82:86118.
Fujita, Fernando. 2010. Discurso en Honor de Luis Lumbreras en la Entrega del Premio La Casona del Centro Cultural de la unmsm. Lima.
Fumerton, Mario. 2001. Rondas Campesinas in the Peruvian Civil War: Peasant
Self-Defence Organizations in Ayacucho. Bulletin of Latin American Research
20(4):47097.
Fung, Rosa. 1963. Arqueologa, Ciencia Histrica. Un Ensayo Crtico de los Mtodos
y la Teoras en la Arqueologa Peruana. Bachelors thesis, Department of Ethnology and Archaeology, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Gaceta Cultural del Per. 2004. Horizonte Cultural. Gaceta Cultural del Per 9:1417.
_____. 2005. Piedra Primordial. Gaceta Cultural del Per 11:1819.
Gnger, Stefanie. 2006. La Mirada Imperialista? Los Alemanes y la Arqueologa
Peruana. Histrica 30(2):6990.
_____. 2007. Nationalism and Archaeology: German Archaeologists and Peruvian
Memory, 18751928. Masters thesis in Historical Studies, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
_____. 2009. Conquering the Past: Post-War Archaeology and Nationalism in the
Borderlands of Chile and Peru, c. 18801920. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 51(4):691714.
Gayton, A. H., and A. L. Kroeber. 1927. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Nazca. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(1):1
46.
Gilly, Adolfo. 2012. Jos Mara Arguedas, Mario Vargas Llosa y el Papacha Oblitas.
Nueva Sociedad 238:6075.
Gnecco, Cristbal. 2004. La Indigenizacin de las Arqueologas Nacionales. In
Teora Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited by Gustavo Politis and Roberto
Peretti, 11928. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Gnecco, Cristbal, and Patricia Ayala, eds. 2010a. Pueblos Indgenas y Arqueologa en
Amrica Latina. Bogot, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
_____. 2010b. Qu Hacer? Elementos para una Discusin. In Pueblos Indgenas y
Arqueologa en Amrica Latina, edited by Cristbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala,
2347. Bogot, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
Goldstein, Paul. 2005. Andean Diaspora: The Tiwanaku Colonies and the Origins of
South American Empire. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Gonzales, Osmar. 2011. Ideas, Intelectuales y Debates en el Per. Lima: Universidad
Ricardo Palma.
Gonzles Panta, Alex. 2010. Arqueologa Hoy Para Qu? o A Costa de Qu? Revista
de Investigaciones del Centro de Estudiantes de Arqueologa (cear)-unmsm 7:127
56.
180
References
Gorriti, Gustavo. 2008. Sendero: Historia de la Guerra Milenaria en el Per. Lima:

Planeta.
Graebner, Fritz. 1911. Methode der Ethnologie. Heidelberg: Winter.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1967. La Formacin de los Intelectuales. Mxico City: Grijalbo.
Gran Aymerich, ve. (1998) 2001. El Nacimiento de la Arqueologa Moderna, 17981945.
Zaragoza, Spain: Universidad de Zaragoza.
Haas, Jonathan. 1985. Excavations on Huaca Grande: An Initial View of the Elite at
Pampa Grande, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology, 12(4):391409.
Hamel, Eugene A. 1969. Pecks Archaeologist. The Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 40:939.
Hampe Martnez, Teodoro. 1998. Max Uhle y los Orgenes del Museo de Historia Nacional (Lima, 19061911). In Max Uhle y el Per Antiguo, edited by Peter Kaulicke,
12356. Lima: pucp.
Haworth, Nigel. 1992. Per. In Latin American Between the Second World War, 1944
1948, edited by Leslie Bethell and Ian Roxborough, 17089. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Herrera, Alexander. 2010. Arqueologa Indgena en el Per? In Pueblos Indgenas
y Arqueologa en Amrica Latina, edited by Cristbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala,
13759. Bogot, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
Higgs, Eric. 1975. Paleoeconomy. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1991. Naciones y Nacionalismos desde 1780. Barcelona: Crtica.
Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton. (1976) 1990. Anlisis Espacial en Arqueologa. Barcelona: Crtica.
Hoffmann, Beatrix. 2007. Posibilidades y Limitaciones para la Reconstruccin y Recontextualizacin de la Coleccin Gretzer del Museo Etnolgico de Berln.
Baessler-Archiv 55:16578.
Honorio, Jos. 2009. Neoliberalismo y Genocidio en el Rgimen Fujimorista. Historia Actual Online 19:6575.
Hutchinson, Thomas. 1873. Two Years in Peru: Exploration of its Antiquities. Volume i.
London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, & Searle.
Ishida, Eiichiro, ed. 1960. Andes: The Report of the University of Tokyo Scientific Expedition to the Andes in 1958. Tokyo: Bijutsu Shuppan Sha.
Jennings, Justin. 2006. Understanding Middle Horizon Peru: Hermeneutic Spirals,
Interpretative Traditions and Wari Administrative Centers. Latin American
Antiquity 17(3):26585.
Jijn y Caamao, Jacinto. 1949. Maranga: Contribucin al Conocimiento de los Aborgenes del Valle del Rmac. Quito, Ecuador: La Prensa Catlica.
Joffr, Daniella. 2007. Reconstructing the Politics of Indigenous Identity in Chile.
Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 3(1):1638.
Johnson, Allen, and Timothy Earle. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Second edition. Stanford, ca: Stanford University
Press.
References
181
Kapsoli, Wilfredo. (1984) 2010. Ayllus del Sol: Anarquismo y Utopa Andina. Lima:
Asamblea Nacional de Rectores.
Kauffmann Doig, Federico. 2000. El Inicio de la Arqueologa Cientfica en el Per:
Reiss y Stbel en Ancn. Exposition of lithographs from the 1875 publication The
Necropolis of Ancn in Peru, Museo de Arte, Lima, April 27May 14, 2000.
Kaulicke, Peter. 1998a. Julio C. Tello vs. Max Uhle en la Emergencia de la Arqueologa
Peruana. In Max Uhle y el Per Antiguo, edited by Peter Kaulicke, 7082. Lima:
pucp.
_____. 20022003. Visiones del Pasado de Johan Jakob von Tschudi. Bulletin de la
Socit Suisse des Amricanistes, 6667:7784.
_____. 2006. Poltica, Prctica y Teora en la Arqueologa del Per. Arqueologa y
Sociedad 17:1117.
_____. 2010. La Vida y Obra de Friedrich Max Uhle. Recientes Logros, Problemas y
Perspectivas. In Max Uhle (18561944): Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras,
edited by Peter Kaulicke, Manuela Fischer, Peter Masson, and Gregor Wolff, 924.
Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
_____. 2011. El Seminario de Arqueologa, el Proyecto Arqueolgico Sechn y la
Especialidad de Arqueologa pucp: De la Prehistoria de una Especialidad y la
Historia de un Sitio Prehistrico. In Arqueologa Peruana: Homenaje a Mercedes
Crdenas, edited by Luisa Vetter, Sandra Tllez, and Rafael Vega-Centeno, 1728.
Lima: Instituto Riva Agero, Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per/Centro
Cultural de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Kidder, Alfred. 1956. Settlement PatternsPeru. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in
the New World, edited by Gordon Willey, 14855. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 23. New York: Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
Klarn, Peter. 1976. Formacin de las Haciendas Azucareras y Orgenes del apra. Lima:
iep.
_____. 2004. Nacin y Sociedad en la Historia del Per. Lima: iep.
Kohl, Philip, and Clare Fawcett, eds. 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of
Archaeology. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
Korstanje, Alejandra, and Jorgelina Garca. 2007. The Qhapaq an Project: A Critical
View. Archaeologies 3(2):11631.
Kristal, Efran. 1991. Una Visin Urbana de los Andes. Gnesis y Desarrollo del Indigenismo en el Per 18481930. Lima: Instituto de Apoyo Agrario.
Kroeber, Alfred. 1925a. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Moche. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(5):191234.
_____. 1925b. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Supe. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(6):23564.
_____. 1926a. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Chancay. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(7):265304.
_____. 1926b. Archaeological Explorations in Peru, Part i: Ancient Pottery from Trujillo.
Anthropological Memoirs of the Field Museum of Natural History 2(1).
182
References
Kroeber, Alfred. 1930. Archaeological Explorations in Peru, Part II: The Northern Coast.
Anthropological Memoirs of the Field Museum of Natural History 2(2).
_____. 1937a. Archaeological Explorations in Peru. Part iv: Caete Valley. Anthropological Memoirs of the Field Museum of Natural History 2(4).
_____. 1937b. Preface. In Archaeological Explorations in Peru, Part III: Textiles of
the Early Nazca Period, edited by Lila ONeale. Anthropological Memoirs of the
Field Museum of Natural History 2(3):1279.
_____. 1944. Peruvian Archeology in 1942. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology
4. New York.
_____. 1963. Methods of Peruvian Archaeology. awpa Pacha 1:6171.
Kroeber, Theodora. 1970. Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lane, Kevin. 2012. Prospects: Archaeological Research and Practice in Peru. Antiquity 86:2217.
Larco Hoyle, Rafael. (1938) 2001. Los Mochicas (Vol. 1). Lima: Museo Arqueolgico
Rafael Larco Herrera.
Larson, Edward. 2006. Evolucin: La Asombrosa Historia de una Teora Cientfica.
Barcelona: Debate.
Linares Mlaga, Eloy. 1964. El Antroplogo Alemn Friedrich Max Uhle. Padre de la
Arqueologa Andina. Arequipa, Peru: Talleres Grficos P. L. Villanueva.
Liss, Sheldon. 1984. Marxist Thought in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lpez Jimnez, scar. 2001. Europa y la Creacin de los Modelos Clticos: El Origen
del Paradigma tnico-Cultural. Trabajos de Prehistoria 58(2):6988.
Lpez Lenci, Yazmn. 2005. La Ciudad del Cusco Hoy: Lugar Sagrado y/o Marca Registrada de una Cultura Globalizada? Available at http://www.iai.spkberlin.de/.
Lpez Mazz, Jos Luis. 2004. Arqueologa e Identidad Uruguaya: El Saber y el Poder
en las Vanguardias Intelectuales. In Teora Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited
by Gustavo Politis and Roberto Peretti, 197211. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Lpez-Ocn, Leoncio. 2002. La Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima y la Formacin de una
Ciencia Nacional en el Per Republicano. Terra Brasilis 3. Available at http://ter
rabrasilis.revues.org/330 (accessed November 21, 2012).
Lorente, Sebastin. (1876) 2005. Escritos Fundacionales de Historia Peruana. Lima:
unmsm.
Lorenzo, Jos Luis. 1976. Hacia una Arqueologa Social, Reunin en Teotihuacn (Octubre 1975). Mxico City: Publicaciones del inah.
Loza, Carmen. 2004. Itinerarios de Max Uhle en el Altiplano Boliviano: Sus Libretas
de Expedicin e Historia Cultural (18931896). Indiana, 15 (Suplemento). Berlin:
Iberoamerikanische Institut.
_____. 2008. Una Fiera de Piedra Tiwanaku, Fallido Smbolo de la Nacin Boliviana.
Estudios Atacameos 36:93115.
References
183
Lozny, Ludomir, ed. 2011. Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past. New York: Springer.
Lull, Vicente, and Rafael Mic. 1997. Teora Arqueolgica I. Los Enfoques Tradicionales: Las Arqueologas Evolucionistas e Histrico Culturales. Revista dArqueologa
de Ponent 7:10728.
_____. 2007. Arqueologa del Origen del Estado: Las Teoras. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Lumbreras, Luis G. 1969. De los Pueblos, las Culturas y las Artes del Antiguo Per.
Lima: Moncloa-Campodnico.
_____. 1974b. La Arqueologa como Ciencia Social. Lima: Histar.
_____. 1974c. The Peoples and Cultures of ancient Peru. Translated by Betty Meggers.
Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution Press.
_____. 1980. Los Orgenes de la Guerra y el Ejrcito en el Antiguo Per. In Historia
General del Ejrcito Peruano: Los Orgenes, edited by Leonor Cisneros and Luis. G.
Lumbreras, 237415. Lima: Comisin Permanente de la Historia del Ejrcito del
Per.
_____. 1981a. La Arqueologa como Ciencia Social. Lima: piesa.
_____. 1981b. Arqueologa de la Amrica Andina. Lima: Milla Batres.
_____. (1983) 2005. La Arqueologa Peruana en los Aos Setenta: Mtodos y Perspectivas. In Arqueologa y Sociedad, edited by Enrique Gonzles Carr and
Carlos del guila, 296306. Lima: iep/inc/indea.
_____. 1986. Tres Fundaciones de un Museo para el Per. In Museo Peruano: Utopa
y Realidad, edited by Alfonso Castrilln, 1218. Lima: Industrial Grfica.
_____. 1993. Chavn de Huntar: Excavaciones en la Galera de las Ofrendas. Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archologie, Band 51. kava. Mainz
am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
_____. 1998. Max Uhle y la Tradicin de Investigacin Arqueolgica en el Per.
Indiana 15:17796.
_____. 2001. Uhle y los Asentamientos de Chincha en el Siglo xvi. Revista del Museo
Nacional 49:1387.
____. 2005. Arqueologa y Sociedad. Edited by Enrique Gonzales and Carlos del
guila. Lima: mnaahp/indea/iep.
____. 2006. Apuntes sobre Julio C. Tello, el Maestro. San Marcos 24:20922.
____. 2010. Arqueologa Cientfica Social: Balances y Perspectivas. In Ctedra Julio
C. Tello, edited by Museo de Arqueologia y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 20821. Lima: unmsm.
Lynch, Nicols. 1990. Los Jvenes Rojos de San Marcos: El Radicalismo Universitario en
los Aos Setenta. Lima: El Zorro de Abajo editores.
____. 2000. Poltica y Antipoltica en el Per. Lima: desco.
Macera, Pablo. 1979. Emilio Choy: Un Hombre de Futuro. In Emilio Choy: Antropologa e Historia 1:xxvixxxiii. Lima: unmsm.
Macera, Pablo, and Jorge Basadre. 1974. Conversaciones. First edition. Lima: Mosca
Azul Editores.
184
References
Manrique, Nelson. 2009. Usted fue aprista! Bases para una Historia Crtica del APRA.
Lima: clacso/Fondo editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
Marcos, Jorge. 2007. La Influencia de Vere Gordon Childe en el Naixement de lArqueologia Social a Latinoamrica. Cota Zero 22:659.
Marcus, Joyce. 2007. Edward Craig Morris 19392006: A Biographical Memoir. Washington, dc: National Academy of Sciences.
Marcus, Joyce, and Patrick Ryan Williams, eds. 2009. Andean Civilization: A Tribute to
Michael Moseley. Los Angeles: ucla Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Maritegui, Jos Carlos. (1928) 1997. 7 Ensayos de interpretacin de la realidad peruana
[Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Marx, Karl, and Eric Hobsbawm. 1971. Formaciones Econmicas Precapitalistas.
Mxico City: Siglo xxi.
Marzal, Manuel. 1998. Historia de la Antropologa, Volumen I, Primera Parte: Antropologa Indigenista. Sixth edition. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala/Universidad Politcnica Salesiana.
Matos Mendieta, Ramiro. 1985. La Formacin Profesional del Arquelogo en el Per.
Boletn de Lima 46:714.
____. 1999. Problemas y Alternativas de la Investigacin en Arqueologa. Investigaciones Sociales 3(4):11117.
Matos Mar, Jos. 1986. Desborde Popular y Crisis del Estado: El Nuevo Rostro del Per
en la Dcada de 1980. Third edition. Lima: iep.
Mauceri, Philip. 1989. Militares: Insurgencia y Democratizacin en el Per, 19801988.
Lima: iep.
____. 1995. State Reform, Coalitions, and the Neoliberal Autogolpe in Peru. Latin
American Research Review 30(1):737.
____. 1997. Return of the Caudillo: Autocratic Democracy in Peru. Third World
Quarterly 18(5):899911.
Mayer, Enrique. 2013. In the Realm of the Incas. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange
in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury,
30918. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
McGuire, Randall, and Rodrigo Navarrete. 1999. Entre Motocicletas y Fusiles: Las
Arqueologas Radicales Anglosajona e Hispana. Revista do Museu de Arqueologia
e Etnologia 3(Suplemento):18199.
Meja Xesspe, Toribio. 1967. Prlogo. In Pginas Escogidas, edited by Julio C. Tello
and Toribio Meja, vxxiii. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Mndez, Cecilia. 1996. Incas Si, Indios No: Notes on Peruvian Creole Nationalism
and its Contemporary Crisis. Journal of Latin American Studies 28(1):197225.
_____. 2006. Las Paradojas del Autoritarismo: Ejrcito, Campesinado y Etnicidad
en el Per, Siglos xix al xx. Iconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 26:1734.
_____. 2011. De Indio a Serrano: Nociones de Raza y Geografa en el Per (siglos
xviiixxi). Histrica 35(1):53102.
References
185
Mendible, Alejandro. 1994. Los Aos Cincuenta: Una Dcada Fundamental. Revista
Sic 570:4613.
Menzel, Dorothy, John H. Rowe, and Lawrence Dawson. 1964. The Paracas Pottery of
Ica: A Study in Style and Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 50.
Mesa, Christian. 2006. Julio C. Tello: Teora y Prctica en la Arqueologa Andina.
Arqueologa y Sociedad 17:4966.
_____. 2011. La Experiencia Insurreccional del Movimiento Revolucionario Tpac
Amaru: Grupo Memoria. Draft report. Available at http://es.scribd.com/doc/795
97327/Mario-Meza-La-experiencia-insurreccional-del-Movimiento-Revolucio
nario-Tupac-Amaru.
Millones, Luis, and Renata Mayer. 2012. La Fauna Sagrada de Huarochir. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos.
Ministerio de Cultura. 2012. Lineamientos de Poltica Cultural. Lima: Ministerio de
Cultura.
_____. n.d. Direccin de General de Patrimonio Arqueolgico Inmueble. Available
at http://www.cultura.gob.pe/patrimonio/arqueologicoinmueble (accessed January 4, 2014).
Mir Quesada, Francisco, and Moiss Vargas. 2002. San Marcos: Tres Periodos en
una Dcada 19902002. Tomado del Informe General y Recomendaciones de
la Comisin de la Verdad San Marcos 20012002, presentado ante la Asamblea
General de la unmsm, April 2002. Available at http://peru.indymedia.org/mail
.php?id=19936.
Molinari, Tirso. 2009. El Fascismo en el Per: La Unin Revolucionaria 19311936. Lima:
Fondo Editorial Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Montoya, Rodrigo. 1998. Todas las Sangres: Ideal para el Futuro del Per. Estudos
Avanados 12(34):23564.
_____. 2005. San Marcos: El Pulmn del Per. Una Entrevista con Rodrigo Montoya,
por Martn Paredes Oporto. Quehacer 154:5662.
Monzn, Cndido, Miguel Roiz, and Mercedes Fernndez. 1997. Perfiles de una
Cultura Poltica Autoritaria: el Per de Fujimori en los Aos Noventa. Revista
Mexicana de Sociologa 59(2):93128.
Morales, Daniel. 1993. Compendio Histrico del Per; Historia Arqueolgica del Per
(del paleoltico al Imperio Inca). Lima: Milla Batres.
Moreira, Neiva. 1975. La Via Revolucionaria Peruana. Barcelona: Avance.
Moreno, Jorge. 2007. Historia de un Pionero. Special issue on Julio C. Tello. El Diario
El Comercio June 15.
Moro-Abada, Oscar. 2007. Arqueologa Prehistrica e Historia de la Ciencia: Haca
una Historia Crtica de la Arqueologa. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Morris, Craig. 1967. Storage in Tawantinsuyu. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, IL.
186
References
Morris, Craig. 1972. State Settlements in Tawantinsuyu: A Strategy of Compulsory

Urbanism. In Contemporary Archeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions,
edited by Mark Leone, 393401. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
____. 1973. Establecimientos Estatales en el Tahuantinsuyu: Una Estrategia de Urbanismo Obligado. Revista del Museo Nacional 39:13544.
____. 1980. Hunuco Pampa: Nuevas Evidencias sobre Urbanismo Inca. Revista del
Museo Nacional 44:13952.
____. 1982. The Infrastructure of Inka Control in Peruvian Central Highlands. In The
Inca and Aztec States, 14001800, edited by G. A. Collier, R. I. Rosaldo, and J. Wirth,
15371. New York: Academic Press.
____. 1985. From Principles of Ecological Complementarity to the Organization and
Administration of Tawantinsuyu. In Andean Ecology and Civilization, edited by
S. Masuda, I. Shimada, and C. Morris, 47790. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
____. 1988. Ms All de las Fronteras de Chincha. In La Frontera del Estado Inca, edited by T. Dillehay and P. Netherly, 13140. bar International Series 442. Oxford,
uk: British Archaeological Reports.
Morris, Craig, and Donald Thompson. 1985. Hunuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland. London: Thames and Hudson.
Moseley, Michael, and Alana Cordy-Collins, eds. 1990. The Northern Dynasties Kingship
and Statecraft in Chimor. Washington dcp: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection.
Moseley, Michael, and Kent Day, eds. 1982. Chan Chan: Andean Desert City. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Mujica, Elas, ed. 2007. El Brujo: Huaca Cao, Centro Ceremonial Moche en el Valle de
Chicama. Lima: Fundacin Wiesse.
Muller, Jon David. 1966. An Experimental Theory of Stylistic Analysis. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, ma.
Murakami, Yusuke. 2007. Per en la Era del Chino: La Poltica No Institucionalizada y
el Pueblo en Busca de un Salvador. Lima: iep/cias.
Murra, John V. 1942. Cerro Narro and Andean Chronology. Masters thesis, University of Chicago, il.
_____. 1946. The Historic Tribes of Ecuador. In Handbook of South American Indians, Volume 2, edited by Julian H. Steward, 785821. Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology.
____. 1948. The Cayapa and the Colorado. In Handbook of South American Indians,
Volume 4, edited by Julian H. Steward, 27791. Washington, dc: Smithsonian
Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology.
____. 1983. Jos Mara Arguedas: Dos imgenes. Revista Iberoamericana 122:4354.
Murra, John, and Gordon Hadden. 1966. Informe Presentado al Patronato Nacional
de Arqueologa sobre la Labor de Limpieza y Consolidacin de Hunuco Viejo (20
de julio a 23 de noviembre de 1965). Cuadernos de Investigacin, 1-Antropologa
12944 and figures. Lima: Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizn. Talleres Grficos P. L. Villanueva.
References
187
Murray, Edmundo. 2008. Jack of All Trades (and Master of All): Dr. Hutchinsons
Practice in Africa and Latin America, 18511874. Irish Migration Studies in Latin
America 6(3):1816.
Narvez, Joaqun. 1999. Proyecto Arqueolgico Huaca San Marcos: Resultados Preliminares. Boletn del Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa 2(5):510.
Nastri, Javier. 2004. La Arqueologa Argentina y la Primaca del Objeto. In Teora
Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited by Gustavo Politis and Roberto Peretti,
21331. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Navarrete, Rodrigo. 2006. La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: Una meta, Mltiples Perspectivas. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Nikitin, P. 1976. Manual de Economa Poltica. Madrid: Akal.
Odra, Manuel A. 1948. Mensaje a la Nacin del Jefe del Movimiento Revolucionario.
General de Brigada Manuel A. Odra, Arequipa, October 27, 1948. Available at
www.congreso.gob.pe/museo/mensajes/Mensaje-1948-1.pdf (accessed December
30, 2013).
Oliart, Patricia. 1999. Alberto Fujimori: El hombre que el Per necesitaba? In Los
Senderos Inslitos del Per: Guerra y Sociedad, 19801995, edited by Steve Stern,
399410. Lima: iep/unsch.
Orellana, Mario. 1996. Historia de la Arqueologa en Chile (18421990). Santiago, Chile:
Bravo y Allende Editores.
Ortiz de Zuiga, Iigo. (1562) 1967. Visita de la Provincia de Len de Hunuco en 1562,
edited by John V. Murra, 2 volumes (1967, 1972). Series: Documentos para la historia y etnologa de Hunuco y la selva central, 1, 2. Hunuco, Per: Universidad
Nacional Hermilio Valdizn, Facultad de Letras y Educacin.
Ortloff, Charles, Michael Moseley, and Robert Feldman. 1982. Hydraulic Engineering
Aspects of the Chimu Chicama-Moche Intervalley Canal. American Antiquity
47(3):57295.
Ossio, Juan. 2006. Andinidad. Boletn del Instituto Riva Agero 33:3953.
Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto, Armando Anaya, Carlos G. Elera, and Lidio Valdez. 1997.
Social Archaeology in Latin America? Comments to T. C. Patterson. American
Paerregaard, Karsten. 2000. Procesos migratorios y estrategias complementarias
en la sierra Peruana. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
69:6980.
Palacios, Ral. 2006. Historia de la Repblica del Per [1933-2000]. Lima: El Comercio.
Palma, Ricardo. (1917) 1956. El Doctor Julio C. Tello: Recuerdos de mi Vida de Estudiante. In La Obra Docente y Doctrinaria de Julio C. Tello, edited by Oscar Santisteban Tello, 79. Lima.
Parsons, Jeffrey. 2004. Critical Reflections on Forty Years of Systematic Regional
Survey. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, March 31April 4, 2004, Montreal, Canada.
188
References
Parsons, Jeffrey, and Ramiro Matos Mendieta. 2002. Foreword. In Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by Terence DAltroy and Christine Hastorf, viixi. New
York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Parsons, Jeffrey, Charles Hastings, and Ramiro Matos. 1997. Rebuilding the State in
Highland Peru: Herder-Cultivator Interaction during the Late Intermediate Period
in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region. Latin American Antiquity 8(4):31741.
Patterson, Thomas. 1994. Social Archaeology in Latin America: An Appreciation.
American Antiquity 59(3):5317.
____. 2002. Toward A Social History of Archaeology in the United States. Belmont, ca:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Paz Soldn, Mariano. 1865. Atlas Geogrfico del Per. Paris: Fermin Didot.
Pease, Franklin. 1995. Breve Historia Contempornea del Per. Mxico City: Fondo de
Cultura Econmica.
Pea, Vctor, Pablo Rivera, Peter Schulz, and Jorge Tpia. 2011. La Produccin Cientfica en San Marcos: Hechos, Cifras y Estndares Internacionales (20022010). Lima:
unmsm/concytec.
Pfeiffer, Robert E. 1969. John Howland Rowe: Bibliography, 19401960. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 40:11232.
Pillsbury, Joanne, and Lisa Trever. 2008. The King, the Bishop, and the Creation of an
American Antiquity. awpa Pacha 29:121219.
Polanyi, Karl. (1944) 1989. La Gran Transformacin: Critica del Liberalismo Econmico.
Madrid: Ediciones de La Piqueta.
Polanyi, Karl, Conrad Arensberg, and Harry Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in
the Early Empires. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Politis, Gustavo. 1995. The Socio-Politics of the Development of Archaeology in
Hispanic South America. In Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective, edited by
Peter Ucko, 197235. London: Routledge.
____. 2006. El Paisaje Terico y el Desarrollo Metodolgico de la Arqueologa en
Amrica Latina. Arqueologa Suramericana 2(2):16875.
Ponce, Grover. 2002. El Discreto Encanto del Desencanto: Jvenes, Poltica y Rgimen Fujimorista en San Marcos de los Noventa. Paper presented at the xii Coloquio Internacional de Estudiantes de Historia, Pontificia Universidad Catlica
del Per, Lima.
Pozorski, Shelia G. 1976. Prehistoric Subsistence Patterns and Site Economics in the
Moche Valley, Peru. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Prieto, Gabriel. 2011. Dos Forjadores de las Ciencias Sociales en el Per: Sus Publicaciones y Confrontaciones. Arqueologa y Sociedad 22:11144.
Prescott, William (1847) 1944. Historia de la Conquista del Per. Buenos Aires: Jnos
Peter Kramer.
Proulx, Donald. 1968. An Archaeological Survey of the Nepea Valley, Peru. Research
Report No. 2, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
References
189
Proulx, Donald. 1982. Territoriality in the Early Intermediate Period: The Case of
Moche and Recuay. awpa Pacha 20:8396.
_____. n.d. Nepea Valley Survey (19671980). Available at http://people.umass.
edu/proulx/Nepena_Valley_Survey.html (accessed January 2, 2014).
Quilter, Jeffrey, and Luis Jaime Castillo, eds. 2010. New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Quilter, Jeffrey, and Michele Koons. 2012. The Fall of the Moche: A Critique of Claims
for South Americas First State. Latin American Antiquity 23(2):12743.
Quiroz, Rubn. 2005. La Guerra Contina: Aproximaciones a la Violencia Poltica e
Ideolgica en el Per. Solar 1(1):7792.
Quiza, Ricardo. 2007. Babel Revisitada: Exposiciones, Globalizacin y Modernidad
(18511905). Hispania Nova: Revista de Historia Contempornea 7. Available at
http://hispanianova.rediris.es.
Ragas, Jos. 2008. Idelogos del Leviatn. Estadstica y Sociedad en el Per (1791
1876). In Intelectuales y Poder: Ensayos en Torno a la Repblica de las Letras en
el Per e Hispanoamrica (ss. xvixx), edited by Carlos Aguirre and Carmen Mc
Evoy, 15172. Lima: ifea/Instituto Riva Agero.
Raimondi, Antonio. 1874. El Per. Parte Preliminar. Tomo I. Lima: Imprenta del Estado.
Ramn, Gabriel. 2005. Periodificacin en Arqueologa Peruana: Genealoga y Apora.
Bulletin de lInstitut Franais dEtudes Andines 34(1):533.
Ratzel, Friedrich. 19091912. Anthropogeographie. Stuttgart, Germany: J. Engelhorn.
Ravines, Rogger. 1970. Los Comienzos de la Arqueologa Andina. In 100 Aos de Arqueologa en el Per, edited by Rogger Ravines, 2953. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
_____, ed. 1980. Chan Chan: Metrpoli Chim. Lima: iep.
____. 2006. Fuentes para la Historia de la Arqueologa Peruana. Boletn de Lima
28(105106):7338.
Reiss, Wilhelm, and Alphons Stbel. 18801887. Das Todtenfeld von Ancon in Peru: ein
Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Cultur und Industrie des Inca-Reiches: nach den Ergebnissen eigener Ausgrabungen. Berlin: Ascher & Co.
Rnique, Jos Luis. 2003. La Voluntad Encarcelada: Las Luminosas Trincheras de
Combate de Sendero Luminoso del Per. Lima: iep.
Rice, Prudence, and Donna Ruhl. 1989. Archaeological Survey of the Moquegua
bodegas. In Ecology, Settlement, and History in the Osmore Drainage, edited by
Don Rice, Charles Stanish, and Philip Scarr, 479502. Oxford, uk: b.a.r. International Series s545.
Rick, John. 1980. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes. New York: Academic Press.
Rivasplata, Paula. 2010. La Proto-Arqueologa en el Per en el Siglo xix. Temas Americanistas 24:63106.
Rivero y Ustariz, Mariano, and Johan Jacob von Tschudi. (1851) 1853. Peruvian Antiquities. New York: George P. Putnam & Co.
190
References
Riviale, Pascal. 2003. Charles Wiener o el Disfraz de Una Misin Lcida. Bulletin de
lInstitut dEtudes Andines 32(3):53947.
Rodrguez, Frank. 2012. La Nocin de Democracia en Tiempos de la Dictadura Militar (19481958). Presente y Pasado. Revista de Historia 17(33):12944.
Ron, James. 2001. Ideology in Context: Explaining Sendero Luminosos Tactical Escalation. Journal of Peace Research 38(5):56992.
Roncagliolo, Santiago. 2005. La Cuarta Espada: La Historia de Abimael Guzmn y
Sendero Luminoso. Barcelona: Debate.
Rowe, John H. 1942a. La Seccin Arqueolgica de la Universidad del Cuzco. Revista
del Instituto Arqueolgico 6(10/11):iii.
_____. 1942b. Sitios Histricos en la Regin de Pucara, Puno. Revista del Instituto
Arqueolgico 6(1011):6675.
____. 1945. Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area. American Antiquity 10:26584.
____. 1946. Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest. In Handbook of South
American Indians, Volume 2, edited by Julian Steward, 183330. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution.
____. 1950. Sound Patterns in Three Inca Dialects. International Journal of American
Linguistics 16(3):13748.
____. 1953. Eleven Inca Prayers from the Zithuwa Ritual. Kroeber Anthropological
Society Papers 8/9:8299.
____. 1954. Max Uhle, 1856-1944: A Memoir of the Father of Peruvian Archaeology.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
46(1):1134.
_____. 1956. Archaeological Explorations in Southern Peru, 19541955. American
_____. 1959. Archaeological Dating and Cultural Process. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 15(4):31724.
____. (1961) 1970. La Arqueologa de Ica. In 100 Aos de Arqueologa en el Per, edited by Rogger Ravines, 41537. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
____. (1962) 1967. Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. In Peruvian
Archaeology: Selected Readings, edited by John Rowe and Dorothy Menzel, 115.
Palo Alto, ca: Peek.
____. 1966. Diffusionism and Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(3):3347.
____. 1998. Interview with John H. Rowe, Honoree of Anthropologys Eighth Emeriti
Lecture. The Jawbone: Anthropology Department Newsletter. University of California, Berkeley.
____. 1998. Max Uhle y la Idea del Tiempo en la Arqueologa Americana. In Max
Uhle y el Per Antiguo, edited by Peter Kaulicke, 524. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
Rowley-Conwy, Peter. 2006. From Genesis to Prehistory: The Archaeological Three
Age System and Its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. Oxford
uk: Oxford University Press.
References
191
Sackett, J. 1977. The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American

Antiquity 42:36280.
Said, Edward. (1997) 2002. Orientalismo. Barcelona: Mondadori.
Salazar-Soler, Carmen. 2007. No Hay Antropologa Ms Diversa: La Antropologa
Francesa en los Andes Peruanos. In Saberes Perifricos: Ensayos sobre la Antropologa en Amrica Latina, edited by Carlos Ivn Degregori and Pablo Sandoval,
153200. Lima: ifea/iep.
Sandoval, Pablo. 2002a. Modernizacin, Democracia y Violencia Poltica en las
Universidades Peruanas (19501995). Informe final del concurso: Fragmentacin
social y crisis poltica e institucional en Amrica Latina y el Caribe. Programa
Regional de Becas clacso.
____. 2002b. El Olvido Est lleno de Memoria: Juventud Universitaria y Violencia
Poltica en el Per: La Matanza de Estudiantes de La Cantuta. Thesis submitted
for professional archaeology license, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Sanoja, Mario. 2007. Memorias para la Integracin: Ensayo sobre la Diversidad, la Unidad Histrica y el Futuro Poltico de Sudamrica y el Caribe. Caracas, Venezuela:
Monte vila.
Saucedo, Daniel. 2012a. I International Symposium on Public Archaeology sokendai-pucp (siap 2011). ap: Online Journal in Public Archaeology Journal 2:17680.
____. 2012b. Looking for an Identity: Archaeologists, Local Communities, and Public Archaeology in Peru. In New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology, edited
by K. Okamura and A. Matsuda, 25161. New York: Springer.
Schaedel, Richard. 1949. Martinez de Compaon, Founder of Peruvian Archaeology.
American Antiquity 15(2):1613.
Schaedel, Richard, and Izumi Shimada. 1982. Peruvian Archaeology, 1946-80: An
Analytic Overview. World Archaeology 13(3):35971.
Schell, Patience A. n.d. In the Service of the Nation: Santiagos Museo Nacional.
Relics & Selves: Articles. Available at: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ibamuseum/texts/
Schell04.htm (accessed December 18, 2013).
Schreiber, Katharina. 2006. In Memoriam: John Howland Rowe, 19182004. awpa
Pacha 28:195201.
Scott, Sarah. 2006. Art and the Archaeologist. World Archaeology, 38(4):62843.
Seplveda, Alberto. 1972. El Militarismo Desarrollista en Amrica Latina. Foro Internacional 13(49):4565.
Shady, Ruth. 1998. Algunas Reflexiones sobre la Arqueologa Nacional. Boletn del
Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa 10:13.
____. 2000. Presentacin. Arqueologa y Sociedad 13:79.
____. 2003. La Ciudad Sagrada de Caral-Supe: Los Orgenes de la Civilizacin y la
Formacin del Estado Prstina en el Antiguo Per. Lima: Instituto Nacional de
Cultura.
192
References
Shady, Ruth. 2006a. Americas First City? The Case of Late Archaic Caral. In Andean
Archaeology III: North and South, edited by William Isbell and Helaine Silverman,
2866. New York: Springer.
____. 2006b. La Civilizacin Caral: Sistema Social y Manejo del Territorio y sus Recursos. Su Trascendencia en el Proceso Cultural Andino. Boletn de Arqueologa
pucp 10:5989.
____. 2008. Poltica Cultural en el Per y la Situacin del Patrimonio Arqueolgico.
International Journal of South American Archaeology 2:617.
____. 2009. Caral-Supe y su Entorno Natural y Social en los Orgenes de la Civilizacin. In Andean Civilization: A Tribute to Michael E. Moseley, edited by Joyce
Marcus and Patrick Williams, 99120. Los Angeles: ucla Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology.
Shanks, Michael. 1999. Art and the Early Greek State: An Interpretive Archaeology.
Cambridge, uk Cambridge University Press.
_____. 2001. Culture/Archaeology: The Dispersion of a Discipline and its Objects.
In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 284305. Cambridge, uk:
Polity.
Shimada, Izumi. 1976. Socioeconomic Organization at Moche V Pampa Grande,
Peru: Prelude to a Major Transformation to Come. PhD dissertation, University
of Arizona, Tucson.
_____. 1978. Economy of a Prehistoric Urban Context: Commodity and Labor Flow
at Moche V Pampa Grande, Peru. American Antiquity 43(4):56992.
_____. 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Shimada, Izumi, and Rafael Vega-Centeno. 2011. Peruvian Archaeology: Its Growth,
Characteristics, Practice, and Challenge. In Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, edited by Ludomir Lozny, 569612. New
York: Springer.
Silva, Mario. 2007. Lords, Pyramids and Replicas: Images from the North Coast of Peru.
New York: Mallqui Books.
Silverman, Helaine, and William Isbell, eds. 2008. Handbook of South American Archaeology. New York: Springer.
Skidmore, Thomas, and Peter Smith. 2005. Modern Latin America. Sixth edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Michael. 2009. V. Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: A Historical
Perspective on a Revolution in Urban Studies. Town Planning Review 80(1):329.
Squier, E. George. 1877. Peru: Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the
Incas. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Stanish, Charles. 1989. Household Archeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 91(1): 724.
References
193
Stanish, Charles. 1999. Settlement Pattern Shifts and Political Ranking in the Lake
Titicaca Basin, Peru In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years
Since Vir, edited by B. Billman and G. Feinman, 11628. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
____. 2001. Regional Research on the Inca. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(3):
21341.
____. 2003. Ancient Titicaca: The Evolution of Complex Society in Southern Peru and
Northern Bolivia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Stanish, Charles, Edmundo De La Vega, Lee Steadman, Cecilia Chvez, Kirk Frye,
Luperio Onofre, Matthew Seddon, and Percy Calisaya. 1997. Archaeological Survey
in the Juli-Desaguadero Region of Lake Titicaca Basin, Southern Peru. Fieldiana 29.
Chicago, il: Field Museum of Natural History.
Stanish, Charles, and Abigail Levine. 2011. War and Early State Formation in the
Northern Titicaca Basin, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
108(34):139016.
Starn, Orin. 1991. Missing the Revolution: Anthropologists and the War in Peru. Cultural Anthropology 6(1):6391.
____. 1995. Maoism in the Andes: The Communist Party of PeruShining Path and
the Refusal of History. Journal of Latin American Studies 27(2):399421.
Stern, Steve, ed. 1998. Shining and Other Paths: War and Society in Peru, 19801995.
Durham, nc: Duke University Press.
Steward, Julian, ed. 1946. Handbook of South American Indians. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 143, 6 volumes. Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution.
____. 1960. Alfred Kroeber, 18761960: A Biographical Memoir. Washington dc: National Academy of Sciences.
Strong, Duncan. 1942. Recent Archeological Research in Latin America. Science,
New Series 95(2460):17983.
Stbel, Alphons, and Max Uhle. 1892. Die Ruinensttte von Tiahunaco im Hochlande
des Alten Per: Eine Kulturgeschichtliche Studie auf Grund Selbstndiger Aufnahmen. Leipzig, Germany: Hiersemann Verlag.
Taboada, Constanza, and Carlos I. Angiorama. 2003. Buscando los Indicadores Arqueolgicos de la Unidad Domstica.Cuadernos de la Facultad de Humanidades y
Ciencias Sociales. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy20:393407.
Tanaka, Martn. 1999. Los Partidos Polticos en el Per, 19921999: Estatalidad, Sobrevivencia y Poltica Meditica. Lima: iep.
Tantalen, Henry. 2004. LArqueologia Social Peruana: Mite o Realitat? Cota Zero
19:90100.
____. 2006. La Arqueologa Marxista en el Per: Gnesis, Despliegue y Futuro. Arqueologa y Sociedad 17:3347.
____. 2008. Arqueologa de la Formacin del Estado: El Caso de la Cuenca Norte del
Titicaca. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Pedaggico San Marcos.
194
References
Tantalen, Henry. 2010b. El Urbanismo Obligado: Craig Morris y el Fenmeno Urbano Inca. Arqueologa y Sociedad 21:13143.
Tantalen, Henry, and Miguel Aguilar, eds. 2012. La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: De la Teora a la Praxis. Bogot, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
Tantalen, Henry, and Csar Astuhuamn, eds. 2013. Historia de la Arqueologa en el
Per del Siglo xx. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos/Institute of Andean Research.
Tello, Julio C. 1921. Introduccin a la Historia Antigua del Per. Lima: Euforin.
____. 1923. Wiracocha. Inca 1(1):94320, 1(3):583606.
____. 1929. Antiguo Per: Primera poca. Lima: Comisin Organizadora del Segundo
Congreso Sudamericano de Turismo-Excelsior.
_____. (1933) 2005. Arqueologa del Valle de Nepea: Excavaciones en Cerro Blanco y
Punkur. Cuadernos de Investigacin del Archivo Tello, 4. Lima: Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
_____. (1936) 1973. Prlogo. In Del Ayllu al Cooperativismo Socialista. First edition.
Lima: Biblioteca Peruana. peisa.
_____. (1939) 1942. Origen y Desarrollo de las Civilizaciones Prehistricas Andinas.
Lima: Librera e imprenta Gil.
_____. 1943. Discovery of Chavn de Huntar. American Antiquity 9(1):13660.
_____. 1960. Chavn: Cultura Matriz de la Civilizacin Andina. Edited by Toribio Meja Xesspe. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
_____. 1967a. Historia de los Museos Nacionales del Per, 18221946. Edited by
Toribio Meja Xesspe. Arqueolgicas 10:1268.
_____. 1967b. Pginas Escogidas. Edited by Toribio Meja Xesspe. Lima: Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Thorp, Rosemary, and Geoffrey Bertram. (1978) 1988. Per: 18901977. Crecimiento y
Polticas de una Economa Abierta. Second edition. Lima: Mosca Azul.
Toohey, Jason. 2009. Community Organization, Militarism, and Ethnogenesis in the
Late Prehistoric Northern Highlands of Peru. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Topic, Theresa Lange. 1977. Excavations at Moche. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, ma.
Trigger, Bruce. 1989a. Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, edited by Robert Preucel
and Ian Hodder, 61531. Oxford, uk: Blackwell.
_____. 1989b. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
____. 1992. Historia del Pensamiento Arqueolgico. Barcelona: Crtica.
____. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. Second edition. Cambridge, Uk:
Cambridge University Press.
References
195
Trever, Lisa. 2012. The Uncanny Tombs in Martnez Compaons Trujillo del Per.
In Past Presented: Archaeological Illustration and the Ancient Americas, edited by
Joanne Pillsbury, 10740. Washington, dc: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection.
Trevisan, Paula, and Luis Massa. 2009. Fotografas Cusqueas Atravesando el Indigenismo. Aisthesis 46:3964.
Tung, Tiffiny. 2012. Violence, Ritual, and the Wari Empire: A Social Bioanthropology of
Imperialism in the Ancient Andes. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Uceda, Ricardo. 2004. Muerte en el Pentagonito: Los Cementerios Secretos del Ejrcito
Peruano. Bogot, Colombia: Planeta.
Uceda, Santiago. 2000. La Arqueologa en el Norte Peruano en la Dcada de los Noventa. sepia viii. Mesa Regional Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en la Costa Norte
25280.
Uceda, Santiago, and Ricardo Morales, eds. 2010. Moche: Pasado y Presente. Trujillo,
Peru: Patronato Huaca del Valle de Moche/Fondo Contravalor Per Francia/
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo.
Uhle, Max. (1903) 1991. Pachacamac: A Reprint of the 1903 edition by Max Uhle. Philadelphia: The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania.
_____. 1907. The Emeryville Shellmound. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(1):184.
Valcrcel, Luis E. 1925b. Informe sobre las Exploraciones Arqueolgicas en Pukara.
Revista Universitaria del Cuzco 48:1421.
____. 1927. Tempestad en los Andes. Lima: Biblioteca Amauta.
____. 1932a. El Personaje Mtico de Pukara. Revista del Museo Nacional 1(1):1831.
____. 1932b. El Gato de Agua: Sus Representaciones en Pukara y Naska. Revista del
Museo Nacional 1(2):327.
____. 1935. Litoesculturas y Cermica de Pukara. Revista del Museo Nacional
4(1):258.
____. 1981. Luis E. Valcrcel: Memorias. Edited by Jos Matos Mar, Jos Deustua, and
Jos Luis Rnique. Lima: iep .
Valdez, Lidio. 2004. La Filosofa de la Arqueologa de Amrica Latina. In Teora
Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited by Gustavo Politis and Roberto Peretti,
12940. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Vargas Llosa, Mario. 1969. Conversacin en la Catedral. Barcelona: Seix Barral.
____. 1996. La Utopa Arcaica: Jos Mara Arguedas y las Ficciones del Indigenismo.
Madrid: Alfaguara.
Vargas, Zenn. 2005. Formacin Profesional: Mito y Realidad. Investigaciones Sociales 14:21334.
Vaughn, Kevin. 2011. The Ancient Andean Village: Marcaya in Prehispanic Nazca. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
196
References
Villela, Sergio, and Jos De la Puente. 2011. El ltimo Secreto de Machu Picchu: Quin
es el Dueo de la Ciudadela de los Incas. Lima: El Comercio.
Villacorta, Luis Felipe. 2006. Antonio Raimondi y el Departamento de Ancash: Historia y Construccin de un vnculo cientfico, personal y simblico. In El Departamento de Ancachs y sus Riquezas Minerales: Coleccin de estudios Geolgicos y
Mineros para la obra El Per, Vol. ii, 1996. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos.
____. 2008. El Prestigio como Poder: Antonio Raimondi y la Validacin Cientfica
del Anhelo por el Progreso Nacional. In Intelectuales y Poder: Ensayos en torno
a la Repblica de las letras en el Per e Hispanoamrica (ss. xvixx), edited by
Carlos Aguirre and Carmen Mc Evoy, 22151. Lima: ifea/Instituto Riva Agero.
Villar Crdova, Pedro. (1935) 1984. Arqueologa del Departamento de Lima. Lima:
Ediciones Atusparia.
Vita-Finzi, Claudio, and Eric Higgs. 1970. Prehistory Economy in the Mount Carmel
Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
36:137.
Watanabe, Luis, Michael Moseley, and Fernando Cabieses, eds. 1990. Trabajos Arqueolgicos en Moquegua, Per. Lima: Programa Contisuyu del Museo Peruano de
Ciencias de la Salud/Southern Peru Copper Corporation.
Watson, Patty Jo, Steven LeBlanc, and Charles Redman. 1974. El Mtodo Cientfico en
Arqueologa. Madrid: Alianza.
Wiener, Ral. 2001. Bandido Fujimori: El Reeleccionista. Second edition. Lima: www
Editores.
Wilk, Richard, and William L. Rathje. 1982. Household Archaeology.American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):61739.
Willey, Gordon. 1945. Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian Archaeology. American Antiquity 11(1):4956.
_____. (1951) 1970. El Problema de Chavn: Revisin y Crtica. In 100 Aos de Arqueologa en el Per, edited by Rogger Ravines, 161214. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
_____. 1952. A Survey of South American Archaeology. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 83(1):5864.
Wilson, David. 1988. Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Lower Santa Valley Peru.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Yalle, Omar. 2008. La Cultura Poltica en el Discurso de los Dirigentes Universitarios
de la Izquierda Sanmarquina: 19952000. Masters thesis, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Yofee, Norman. 2005. The Myth of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities,
States, and Civilizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zevallos Quiones, Jorge. 1994. Huacas y Huaqueros en Trujillo durante el Virreinato
(15351835). Trujillo, Per: Editora Normas Legales.
Index
III Communist International, 70

7 Ensayos de Interpretacin de la
Realidad Peruana/Seven Inter-
pretive Essays on Peruvian Reality
(book), 60, 163
American Museum of Natural History,

New York, 34, 73, 113, 159, 166
American travelers, 61
anarchism, 62, 69
Ancash, 92
ancient history, 57
ancient Peruvian, 43
ancient world, 56
Andean archaeology, 30, 87, 90, 111
Andean cities, 99
Andean civilization, 51, 54, 61, 138
Andean culture, 60-62, 67, 68
Andean ethnology, 61
Andean history, 99
Andean native, 59, 61
Andean past, 59
Andean peoples, 54, 61
Andean prehistory, 111
Andean societies, 60
Andean studies, 76
Andean world, 28, 51
Anders, Martha, 121
Anglo-Saxon positivism, 108
anthropological models, 118, 119
anthropologists, 61
anthropology, 50, 68, 92, 100, 125, 150,
159, 161
Anthropology Museum at Berkeley, 54
Antigedades Peruanas (book), 24, 25, 158
anti-imperialist discourse, 70
A
absolute chronology, 89, 90
academic circles, 31, 50, 72
academic discourse, 55
academic environment, 61
Acari, 161
Acllawasi, 54
Adams, Robert M., 98, 99
aesthetics, 36
agency, 146
agrarian reform, 106
guila, Carlos del, 113
Aguilar, Miguel, 127
Aguirre Beltrn, Gonzalo, 93
Alcalde, Javier, 113
Alfonso Ugarte, Avenue (Lima), 68
Alianza Popular Revolucionaria
Americana (APRA), 44, 66, 70, 71,
84, 85, 105, 117, 137, 163, 164
Allies, 42, 71, 81, 83
allochthonous thesis, 51
Althusser, Louis, 108, 121
altiplano archaeology, 62
Alva, Walter, 143, 144
Amat, Hernn, 132
197
198
Index
antiquarian, 24
Antiquities Act, USA, 161
antiquities collectors, 27
Antnez de Mayolo, Santiago, 53
Apaico, Anbal, 167
Apuntes Arqueolgicos (journal), 125
Apus, 136
archaeological deposits, 65
archaeological descriptions, 21
archaeological monuments, 58, 63
archaeological context, 46
archaeological data, 31, 39, 74, 87, 93, 122
archaeological discourse, 108
archaeological discoveries, 61, 62
archaeological evidence, 97
archaeological excavations, 27, 63
archaeological explanation, 35, 36, 46, 86
archaeological heritage, 39, 138, 140-142,
151, 158
archaeological heritage management, 140
archaeological interpretation, 107
archaeological logic, 32
archaeological materials, 34, 51, 123
archaeological objects, 40, 46, 150
archaeological patrimony, 24, 41, 141
archaeological projects, 53, 132-134, 143
archaeological remains, 110
archaeological representations, 21
archaeological science, 29
archaeological sequence, 88
archaeological thought, 61, 86, 138
archaeological tradition, 42
archaeologists, 61, 65
Archaeology as Social Science/La
Arqueologa como Ciencia Social
(book), 107, 111, 166
archaeology programs, 116, 140
architecture, 55
Arequipa, 24, 56, 66, 116, 161
Argentina, 29, 30, 33, 148, 153, 160, 169
Arguedas, Jos Mara, 60, 99, 100, 101,
104, 110
Arica, 41, 158

Aristocratic Republic (period of), 39, 44
Arqueologa de la Amrica Andina
(book), 113
Arqueologa del Departamento de Lima
(book), 161
Arqueologa y Sociedad (journal), 125
art-historical perspective, 31, 111
artifacts, 55, 77, 118, 119
Asia, 162
Asociacin Pro-Indgena, 57, 162
spero (archaeological site), 161
Astuhuamn, Csar, 50
authoritarian tradition, 22
authoritarianism, 66, 127, 128
Avenida Arequipa, 109
vila, Francisco de, 21, 60
Ayacucho, 109
Aymara (language), 63, 124, 164
Aymara grammar, 34, 160
B
Bachir, Acha, 145
Baessler, Arthur, 27
Bandelier, Adolph, 30, 34, 73, 159
Barcelona, Spain, 140
Barnes, Monica, 96
Barranca, Sebastin, 50
Barreda Murillo, Luis, 97
Basadre, Jorge, 44, 56, 110
Bastian, Adolph, 30, 33, 34
Bate, Luis Felipe, 108
Battle of Ayacucho, 22
Bawden, Garth, 120, 121
Bazn, Augusto, 134
Belande Terry, Fernando, 91, 92, 106
Belgium, 33
Bellavista, Callao, 40
Benavides, Oscar, 66, 70
Bennett, Wendell C., 73-76, 80, 163, 164
Beresford-Jones, David, 145
Berlin, 24, 33, 34, 50, 160
Index
Billinghurst, Guillermo, 44, 51, 62, 69

Binford, Lewis, 119, 122
Bingham, Hiram, 62, 63, 163
biology, 25
Bird, Junius, 76, 80, 97, 166, 167
Bird, Robert McKelvey, 97
Blanco, Hugo, 85, 101
Blondet, Cecilia, 96
Boas, Franz, 31, 50, 54, 67
Boasian anthropology, 46
Boletn de Arqueologa de la PUCP
(journal), 140, 146
Boletn del Seminario de Arqueologa
(journal), 125
Bolvar, Simn, 158
Bolivia, 27, 33-35, 73, 76, 158, 160
Bolivian altiplano, 34, 124
Bolivian government, 33
Bonavia, Duccio, 95, 110, 132, 138, 161
Brazil, 29, 30, 113, 148, 153, 164
Brennan, Curtiss, 120
Britain, 22, 140, 147
British government, 159
Brown University, 86
Brown, Michael, 122
Bueno, Alberto, 132
Buenos Aires, 33, 59
Bureau of American Ethnology, 74
Burga, Manuel, 45
Burger, Richard, 118, 122, 124
Bustamante y Rivero, Jos Luis, 71, 83, 85
C
Cabieses, Fernando, 123
Cceres, Andrs Avelino, 39, 44
Cadena, Marisol de la, 92, 93, 95, 96, 101
Cajamarca, 20, 169
Callao, 104
Callejn de Huaylas, 118
Cambridge school of paleoeconomy, 118
campesinos, 85, 91, 99, 100, 106
Canada, 120
199
Canziani, Jos, 113

Capar Muiz, Jos Lucas, 58
Capelo, Joaqun, 162
Caral Archaeological Zone (Zona
Arqueolgica Caral), 143
Caral (archaeological site), 142
Caral Project, 133, 142
carbon dates, 89
Carnegie Institution of Washington, 86
Carrillo, Hernn, 113
Carrin Cachot, Rebeca, 55, 85
Casa de la Cultura (Peru), 100, 140
Castilla, Ramn, 23
Castillo, Luis Jaime, 121, 139
Castro, Pedro, 145
Catamarca, Argentina, 33
Catholic Church, 21
Catholic religion, 23
Central Andes, 43, 51, 73, 74, 76, 109, 112
Central coast (of Peru), 47, 89, 167
Central Europe, 47
Ceramic motifs, 65
Ceramic style, 36, 74, 77, 89
Cerro Blanco (archaeological site), 53
Chala, Arequipa, 161
Chan Chan (archaeological site), 24, 120,
144
Chan Chan: Andean Desert City/Chan
Chan: Metrpoli Chim (book), 121
Chan ChanValle de Moche Project, 120,
121, 143
Chancay Valley (Lima), 27, 161
Chancay Valley (Lambayeque), 121
Chauchat, Claude, 120
Chauvinism, 52
Chvez Balln, Manuel, 90, 97
Chavilca Quebrada, Cieneguilla, 168
Chavn de Huntar (archaeological site),
46, 51, 54, 67, 73, 74, 110, 158
Chavn style, 90
Chavn, culture of, 47, 55, 63, 74, 75, 79
Chavia, 161
200
Index
Chen Chen (archaeological site), 123, 124

Chibcha language, 160
Chicago, 165
Chicama Valley, 78, 80, 144, 151
Chicln Museum, 79, 81
Chicln Roundtable, 79, 80, 81
Chiefdom, 118
Childe, V. Gordon, 47, 72, 98, 99, 103,
104, 109
Chile, 24, 27, 41, 43, 148, 153, 164, 169
Chilean archaeologists, 41
Chilean troops, 23, 161
Chim Empire, 120
China, 109
Chincha, 113
Chiripa (archaeological site), Bolivia, 73, 74
Chococota (archaeological site),
El Carmen, 113
Choquequirao (archaeological site), 40
Chosica, 42
Chotuna-Chornancap (archaeological
site), 144
Choy Ma, Emilio, 103-105, 109, 130
chroniclers, 28
chronological sequence, 30, 31, 89
chronology, 30, 43, 75, 87
Chumbivilcas, 62
Chupachu/Chupaychu (ethnic group),
98, 165
Cieza de Len, Pedro, 21
civilization, 31, 52
Clark, Grahame, 47, 149
Cold War, 84, 92, 102
Colegio de Arquelogos del Per
(COARPE), 146, 148
Collier, Donald, 80, 93
Coloma, Csar, 25
Colombia, 158, 164
colonial character, 84
colonial domination, 22
colonial era, 45, 158
colonial legacy, 22
colonial mentality, 23
colonialist worldview, 28
Columbia University, 67, 94
Comas, Juan, 110
Comisin de Formalizacin de la Propie-
dad Informal (COFOPRI), 135
Comisin de la Verdad y la Reconciliacin/
Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
117, 129
Communism, 71
Communist ideology, 84, 92
Communist Party of Peru, 45, 70, 105, 163
Communist regime, 94
competition, 119
complex societies, 119, 123
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas/
International Congress of American-
ists, 31, 42, 108, 111, 160, 162
Conrad, Geoffrey, 120
Consejo Nacional de Cinematografa
(CONACINE), 141
Consejo Nacional de Democratizacin
del Libro y de Fomento de la Lectura
(PROMOLIBRO), 141
Conservative, 23
Constituent Assembly, 107, 117
contract archaeology, 135, 145
Contreras, Carlos, 26
Conversation in the Cathedral (novel), 84
Cooper, Prentice, 71
Crdoba (Argentina), 114
Cordy Collins, Alana, 121
Cornejo Polar, Antonio, 112
Costa Rica, 160
Cotler, Julio, 22, 71
Cotter, John, 97
Creole elites, 43
Cuba, 92, 93
Cuban Communist revolution, 107
Cueto, Marcos, 26
cultural anthropology, 50
cultural area, 76, 87
cultural change, 47, 86, 118
Index
cultural borders, 56
cultural change, theory of, 46
cultural ecology, 118
cultural ecological perspective, 77
cultural evolution, 122
Cultural evolutionism, 72, 88
cultural heritage, 43
cultural heritage management, 140
cultural historical areas, 113
cultural historical methodology, 87, 108
cultural historical approaches, 72, 74, 76
cultural historical categories, 114
cultural historical narratives, 52
cultural historical school, 118, 119, 124
cultural historical sequences, 73, 74, 76,
78, 163, 164
cultural historical theory, 108, 149
cultural history, 45, 46, 47, 77, 90
cultural history perspective, 72, 79
cultural patrimony, 33, 51, 140, 155
cultural patterns, 86, 88, 122
cultural resource management (CRM), 135,
140, 145-147
cultural unity, 77
culture (in archaeology), 46, 51, 74, 77, 164
Cusco, 24, 56-58, 60-62, 65, 67, 69, 88, 90,
95, 151, 161, 169
Cusquea society, 58
D
DAltroy, Terence, 120, 122
Daggett, Richard, 50, 167
Dama de Cao, 151
Darwin, Charles, 65
Dawson, Lawrence, 73, 86, 89
Day, Kent, 120, 121
De los Orgenes del Estado (book), 112
De los Pueblos, las Culturas y las Artes en
el Antiguo Per (book), 111
Degregori, Carlos Ivn, 128
dependency theory, 95, 100
dependent countries, 46
201
dialectic perspective, 111

Die Ruinenstatte von Tiahuanaco (book),
160
diffusionism, 35, 46, 51, 55, 165
explanation of, 46, 50, 51, 110
framework of, 65, 111
school of, 54
theories of, 52, 163
thesis of, 73, 103
Dios Guevara, Juan de, 112
Dixon, Roland, 50
domestic context, 89
Donnan, Christopher, 120, 121
Dresden, Germany, 33
E
Earle, Timothy, 120, 122, 167
Early Intermediate Period, 87, 89
eastern Europe, 93
economic anthropology, 99, 164
economic colonialism, 71
economic dependence, 70
economic context, 71
Ecuador, 41, 43, 93, 164
egalitarian tribal social structures, 104
Egypt, 87
Ejrcito de Liberacin Nacional (ELN), 105
El Brujo Archaeological Project, 144
El Frontn Island, Callao, 83
El Paraso (archaeological site), 120
electoral process, 66
Emeryville (archaeological site), 161
empiricism, 67
empirical base, 32, 89
empirical evidence, 36
empirical knowledge, 31
empirical work, 88
Engels, Frederick, 105
England, 31, 122
Enlightenment, 24, 28
epistemology, 28, 30, 51
Escrcena, Augusto, 113
202
Index
Escuela de Bellas Artes de Lima, 65

Estado Nacional (Lima), 84
Estete, Miguel de, 20
ethnic groups, 56, 61, 98
ethnic identity, 138, 169
ethnoarchaeology, 138
ethnoarchaeological study, 122
ethnography, 93, 118
ethnographic research, 93
ethnohistory, 61, 90, 161
ethnohistorical approach, 92
ethnohistorical documents, 86
ethnohistorical research, 97
ethnology, 60, 74, 159
ethnological approach, 64
ethnological method, 65
ethnological thought, 61
ethnological work, 97
Euro-American tradition, 29
Europe, 26, 30, 36, 37, 41, 45, 66, 67, 72, 92,
103, 147, 149, 160
European archaeology, 36
European colonists, 30
European countries, 46
European immigrants, 27, 30
European prehistory, 46
European republics, 22
European travelers, 61
Evans, Clifford, 80
evolutionary approach, 36
evolutionary logic, 114
evolutionary philosophy, 31
evolutionary scheme, 52
evolutionary theory, 79, 67, 118
Ex Oriente Lux, 47
Exhibition Palace/Palacio de la
Exposicin, Lima, 38, 39
explanatory framework, 46
explorers, 27
extirpators of idolatries, 21
F
Facultad de Medicina de San Fernando, 23
Faculty of Letters, San Marcos University, 42
Farabee, William, 50
Fascism, 67, 163
Fascist countries, 71
Fascist regimes, 66
Feldman, Robert, 120
Fernndez de Pirola, Niclas, 26
feudal structure, 45
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago,
160
field schools (in archaeology), 144, 153
fieldwork, 32, 98
Flannery, Kent, 120, 122, 167
Flores Galindo, Alberto, 22, 45, 66, 99, 106,
154, 164
Flores, Isabel, 110
Fonseca Martel, Csar, 97
Ford, James, 80
foreign capital, 22
foreign researchers, 73
foreign travelers, 28
Formative site, 53, 74
Foucault, Michel, 26
France, 22, 28, 31, 147
Franco, Francisco, 67
French structuralist materialism, 108, 121
Frisancho, Jos, 63
Fujimori, Alberto, 115, 126-128, 130, 134-137,
167, 168
Fujita, Fernando, 113
Fulbright Commission, 73, 86
functionalist framework, 77
Fundacin Wiese, 144
funerary contexts, 121
Fung, Rosa, 51, 105, 110, 125, 130, 138
G
Gaceta Arqueolgica Andina (journal), 113
Galindo (archaeological site), 121
Gallinazo (archaeological site), 73
Index
Gndara, Manuel, 108

Gnger, Stefanie, 25, 29, 40, 162
Garca Caldern, Francisco, 58
Garca, Alan, 117, 137
Gate of the Sun (Tiwanaku), 36, 46
Geographical Society of Lima (Sociedad
Geogrfica de Lima), 31, 38, 40
geology, 25
geologist, 32
Germany, 28, 33-35, 41, 42, 45, 47, 113
German citizens, 42
German government, 42
Giersz, Milosz, 145
Giesecke, Alberto, 58, 163
Gilgamesh, Epic of, 21
Godelier, Maurice, 108
Gonzles Panta, Alex, 134
Gonzles, Osmar, 100
Gonzlez Prada, Manuel, 58, 59
Gteborg, 162
Graebner, Fritz, 160
Gramsci, Antonio, 157
Grandes Unidades Escolares, 84
Greece, 88
Gretzer, Wilhelm, 27
Grupo Colina, 168
guano, 22, 23
exploitation of, 21, 158
Guardia Mayorga, Csar, 110
Guevara, Diego, 113
Guevara, Vctor J., 58
Guilln, Vctor, 63
Gusinde, Martin, 41
Gutirrez de Quintanilla, Emilio, 41, 51
H
Haas, Jonathan, 121
hacienda, 45, 63
Hacienda Chicln, 80
Hacienda Chiquitoy, 80
Hadden, Gordon D., 97
Hamel, Eugene, 87
203
Hampe Martnez, Teodoro, 38

Handbook of South American Archaeol ogy, 146
Handbook of South American Indians,
74, 78, 82, 86, 93
Harvard University, 50, 120, 167
Hastings, Charles, 121
Hastorf, Christine, 122
Hatuncolla, 24
Hawaii, 167
Haya de la Torre, Vctor Ral, 45, 70, 71, 107
Hegel, Georg W. F., 31, 36
hegemonic science, 31
hegemonic academic institutions, 28
hegemonic archaeology, 81
hegemonic discourse, 51
Herculaneum, 21
Herrera, Alexander, 82
Herskovitz, Melville, 93
history (discipline), 150, 151
historical particularism, 45, 47
historical materialism, 119, 121
analysis with, 104, 111
perspective of, 108, 113, 119
historical particularism, 100
historical phenomenon, 73
history of archaeology, 127
history of art, 36, 65, 88
Hitler, Adolf, 66
Holmberg, Allan, 92
horizon concept, 46, 47, 72, 86, 87
Hospital del Empleado (now Rebagliatti),
84
Hospital Militar Central (Coronel Luis
Arias Schreiber), 84
household (archaeology of), 138
Hrdlicka, Alex, 50
Huaca, 20, 21, 157
Huaca Arambur, 40
Huaca El Brujo (archaeological site), 151
Huaca Pucllana, Lima, 133
Huaca San Marcos, 131, 133
204
Index
Huacas de la Luna y el Sol (archaeological

site), 121, 132, 144
Huamanga city, 109, 111
Hunuco, 92, 96, 97
Huanuco Pampa, 24, 96, 97, 99, 100, 158
Huaricoto (archaeological site), 118
Huarochir, 49, 50-52, 64
Huarochir Manuscript, 21
human remains, 50
human evolution, 37
Humboldt, Alexander von, 25
Hurtado Miller, Juan Carlos, 127
Hutchinson, Thomas, 27, 37, 159
Huxley, Aldous, 95
hypothesis, 36, 51, 61, 75
hypothetical deduction, 51
hypothetical-deductive method, 118
I
Ibero-American Institute, Berlin, 42
Ica, 84, 90
Ica Valley, 89
iconographic motifs, 36
iconography, 65
ideological conflict, 84
ideologies, 19, 29
Illinois, 159
imagined community, 45
impact archaeology, 135
Inca, 24, 33, 35, 37, 52, 61, 74, 87, 94, 98, 99,
136, 164
Inca Empire, 37, 56, 62
Inca mythology, 45
Inca road system, 114
Inca ruins, 26, 158
Inca society, 94, 99
Inca State, 97
Inca style, 78
index fossil, 77, 88
indigenismo, 47, 56-58, 62, 67, 95, 100, 103,
104
Indigenista movement, 49, 56, 162

indigenous peoples, 21, 30, 45, 56, 60, 61, 63,
69, 101, 153, 154, 169
indigenous writers, 57
indigenous archaeology, 153
indigenous beliefs, 21
indigenous culture, 61
indigenous intellectuals, 57
indigenous nationalism, 52
indigenous painters, 57
indigenous race, 24
Indo-European languages, 160
Initial Period, 89
Institute of Andean Research, 54, 73, 79, 99
Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de los
Pueblos Indgenas, Amaznicos y
Afroperuanos (INDEPA), 141
Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueolgi -
cos (INDEA), 113
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP), 95
Instituto Histrico del Per, 39, 41
Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INC), 113-
115, 135, 140-142
intellectuals, 28, 31, 32, 37, 39, 42, 56, 59, 66,
82, 137, 152
intellectual elite, 44, 50
intellectual movement, 100, 137
intellectual tradition, 28, 139
International Brigade, 94
International Committee for Scientific and
Cultural Cooperation, 74
International Monetary Fund (IMF), 107
international networks, 19
International Petroleum Company, 84, 161
Ireland, 159
Isbell, William, 118
Ishida, Eiichiro, 124
Isla San Lorenzo, 40, 62, 161
Isla, Elizabeth, 113
Islands of the Sun and Moon, Lake
Titicaca, 30, 158
Italian fascism, 66, 163
Index
J
Jamaica, 93
Japanese citizens, 42
Japanese residents, 71
Jenson, Peter, 97
Jijn y Caamao, Jacinto, 42, 161
Julien, Michle, 145
Junn, 169
K
Karp, Eliane, 136
Kauffmann Doig, Federico, 25
Kaulicke, Peter, 29, 125, 139, 140, 158
Keatinge, Richard, 120
Klein Mission, 83
Kolata, Alan, 120
Knigliches Museum fr Vlkerkunde/
Royal Museum of Ethnology, Berln,
32-34, 40
Korean War, 84
Kossina, Gustav, 47
Kroeber, Alfred, 31, 35, 46, 53, 54, 73, 76, 78,
79, 88, 90, 161, 162, 165
Kubitschek, Juscelino, 164
Kultur Kreiss, 160
L
La Convencin Valley, Cusco, 85, 101
La Paz, Bolivia, 34
La Prensa (Peruvian newspaper), 109
Labarthe, Pedro, 162
Lake Poop, 33
Lake Titicaca, 30, 33, 34, 61, 74
Lambers, Karsten, 145
land reform, 85
Lane, Kevin, 145
Lanning, Edward, 73, 89
Larco Herrera, Rafael, 81
Larco Herrera, Vctor, 80
Larco Hoyle, Rafael, 47, 55, 69, 78, 79, 81, 82,
143, 151
205
Las Necrpolis de Ancn en Per (book),

27, 32
Late Horizon, 89
Late Intermediate Period, 87
Latin America, 76, 84, 94, 114, 118, 128, 150
Latin American countries, 24, 72, 74, 92,
153
Latin America intellectuals, 84, 93, 94
Latin American Antiquity (journal), 168
Latin American social archaeology, 107, 114
Lavalle, Danile, 145
leftist intellectuals, 94, 109, 111
leftist political parties, 107
Legua, Augusto B., 44, 50, 52, 55, 62, 64, 99,
150, 162
dictatorship of, 45, 52, 62, 67
liberal, 23
liberal values, 22
Lima (city), 23, 27, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42, 49,
56-58, 62, 63, 66, 80, 82, 84, 85, 89, 94,
108, 125, 126, 134, 150, 152, 154
culture of, 133
elite of, 39, 40, 56
intellectual circles of, 57, 104
Limeos, 57
Linares Mlaga, Eloy, 29, 42
Lince, Lima, 109
linguistics, 86
Lo Andino, 28, 99-101
local identity, 150
London, 24, 98, 159
looting, 21, 23, 59
Lpez Lenci, Yazmn, 136
Lorente, Sebastin, 159, 160
Lorenzo, Jos Luis, 108, 109, 112
Luis de la Puente Uceda, 91
Lukurmata, 73
Lumbreras, Luis G., 50, 95, 104-114, 116, 125,
130, 132, 138, 142, 149, 166
Lupaqa, 98, 165
Lurn Valley, 124, 167
Luschan, Felix von, 50
206
Index
M
Macera, Pablo, 130
Machu Picchu, 18, 59, 62, 67, 136, 155, 163
Mackey, Carol, 120, 121
Makatampu (archaeological site), 40
Makowski, Kzrysztof, 139
Malay, 32
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 93
Man Makes Himself (book), 105, 164
Manrique, Nelson, 84, 91
Mantaro Valley, 122
Mao Tse Tung, 109
Maranga complex, 42
Marcahuamachuco (archaeological site),
142
Marcona Mining Company, 84
Marcoy, Paul, 30
Marcus, Joyce, 122, 167
Maritegui, Jos Carlos, 45, 59, 60, 66, 70,
163
markets, 84, 97, 100, 101, 102, 127, 145
Martnez Compan, Baltasar, 21
Marx, Karl, 104
Marxism, 62, 69, 100, 111, 132, 149, 166
and the Left, 94
archaeology of, 107, 132
ideas, 59
paradigm of, 112, 116
structural Marxist, 108
theory of, 47, 130, 132
thought, 60, 103, 132
Massa, Luis, 28
Master Ica sequence/Ocucaje master
sequence, 86, 89, 90
master sequence, 76
material culture, 61
material remains, 52
Matos Mar, Jos, 85, 96, 110, 117
Matos, Ramiro, 95, 97, 105, 110, 119-122, 124,
125, 130, 132, 137-139, 143, 167
Matto de Turner, Clorinda, 58
Maya (culture), 162
Mayer, Dora, 162

Mayer, Enrique, 101
Meja Xesspe, Toribio, 55, 85
Mndez, Cecilia, 128, 154
Mendizbal Losack, Emilio, 97
Mendoza, Mara, 105
Meneses, Susana, 144
Menzel, Dorothy, 73, 86, 89
Merriam, John C., 161
Mesoamerica, 47
archaeology of, 50
Mesopotamia, 47, 98
metanarratives, 52
methodology, 55, 64, 78, 118, 119
methodological framework, 72
Mexico, 54, 76, 92, 107, 119, 137, 138
Mexico City, 93
Middendorf, Ernst, 27, 30
Middle Horizon, 89, 110
middle-range theories, 122
militant activity, 129
military dictatorships, 107
military government, 66, 70
military junta, 91, 102
mineral resources, 23
mining exploitation, 21
Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y
Turismo, 143
Ministries of Work, Peru, 84
Ministry of Culture, Peru, 140, 141, 143, 147
Ministry of Economy, Peru, 84
Ministry of Education, Peru, 84, 141
Mintz, Sydney, 93
Miraflores, Lima, 133
Moche
culture, 81, 142, 150
archaeology, 127
state, 121
Moche Valley, 120, 121
modes of production, 104
Montelius, Oscar, 47
Index
Montesinos, Vladimiro, 128

Montoya, Rodrigo, 62
Moquegua, 84, 123, 124
Morales Bermdez, Francisco, 107, 117, 130
Morales, Daniel, 105, 132
Morgan, Lewis H., 31, 74, 159
Morris, Craig, 96, 97, 98, 99, 113
Moseley, Michael, 120, 121, 123
Mother Culture (theory of), 51, 81, 103
Mould de Pease, Mariana, 144
Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria
(MIR), 91, 105
Movimiento Revolucionario Tpac Amaru
(MRTA), 128, 135, 168
Muelle, Jorge C., 42, 55, 65, 68, 81, 110, 112
Mujica, Elas, 95
Murra, John V., 91, 93-102, 110, 124, 165
Museo Bolivariano, 68
Museo de Arqueologa de la Universidad
Nacional San Antonio de Abad, 57, 58,
147
Museo de Arqueologa of San Marcos, 48,
50, 53, 111, 130, 133, 142
Museo de Arqueologa Peruana, 49, 67
Museo Histrico de Chile, 41
Museo Inka (Cusco), 57
Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Antrop-
ologa del Per, 49, 55, 68, 85, 111, 113
Museo Nacional de Arqueologa, Ecuador,
42
Museo Nacional de Chavn, 115
Museo Nacional de Chile, 161
Museo Tumbas Reales de Sipn, 169
Museum of Neuchtel, Switzerland, 158
N
Nancy, France, 160
Narvez, Joaqun, 133
national
bourgeoisie, 71
identities, 24, 43, 52, 150 (construction
of), 46
archaeology, 24, 85, 125, 137
207
culture, 45
discourse, 52
economy, 22, 66, 84, 126, 127
National Assembly of Rectors, Peru, 168
National Geographic (magazine), 18
National Geographic Society, 120, 142, 145
National History Museum/Museo de
Historia Nacional, Peru, 37-41, 43, 51
National Library (of Peru), 49, 50
National Museum of Peru, 24, 37
National Museum, Bogot, 158
national politics, 37, 51, 52
National Reconstruction, period of 23, 38
National Science Foundation, 92, 97, 120
nationalist ideology, 51
nationalist politics, 43
nationalistic indigenismo, 49, 52
nationality, 52
nation-states, 46
Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 154
natural history, 23, 26, 27
Natural History Museum, Bogot, 158
naturalists, 31
Naval Hospital, 84
Nazca (style), 64, 65, 89
Nazca, Ica, 161
Nazca Lines, 18
Nazism, 67
Near East, 47
Necropolis of Ancn, 25, 27, 30, 34
neoevolutionary theory, 72, 87, 103, 118
neoliberal
economics, 127, 128, 135, 145
philosophy, 119, 129
policies, 129, 136, 137
neolithic revolution, 47, 165
neopositivist framework, 119, 124
Nepea Valley, 53, 121, 166, 167
New Guinea, 32
New York, 76, 162
208
Index
nineteenth century, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29-31, 36,

37, 39, 42, 71, 74, 80, 87, 92, 146, 149, 159
Noble Savage, 28
North America, 93
North American anticommunist
policies, 71
North American archaeologists, 68, 72,
73, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 103, 106, 116, 117, 119,
120, 123, 124, 142, 146, 163
North American archaeology, 50, 72, 111
North American capitalism, 70
North American ethnology, 67
North American Indians, 74
North American policies, 71
North American researchers, 72, 74
North American scholars, 35, 72
Northwestern University, 93
Nez del Prado, Oscar, 90
Nuez, Lautaro, 108
O
Oaxtepec Group, 108
Ocucaje, 89
Odra, Manuel A., 83-85, 163, 164
official ideology, 45, 67
oil exploitation, 84
oligarchy, 71
Ollanta drama, 59
Ollantaytambo, 58
Omo (archaeological site), 123
Onuki, Yoshio, 145
Opus Dei, 67
Order of the Sun (Orden del Sol), 42
Orefici, Giuseppe, 145
organic intellectual, 157
Orsini, Carolina, 145
Ortiz, Fernando, 93
Ortloff, Charles, 121
Ossio, Juan, 97
Owen, Bruce, 122, 123
P
Pachacamac, 24, 32
Pachacamac (archaeological site), 20, 31,

34-36, 46, 47, 54, 65, 81, 160, 164
Pachacutec (Inca), 136
Palerm, Angel, 93
Palma, Ricardo, 38, 49
Palpa Valley, 161
Pampa Grande (archaeological site), 121
Pando (archaeological site), 125
Paniagua, Valentn, 136
Paamarca (archaeological site), 167
Paracas (meeting), 113
Paracas (style), 64, 65, 89
Paracas period, 113
Paracas, Necropolis of, 68
paradigm, 46, 72, 114
Pardo y Barreda, Jos, 39, 44, 62
Pardo, Manuel, 23, 44
Paredes Manrique, Manuel, 130
Paris, 24, 158
Parque de la Exposicin, Lima, 158
Parsons, Jeffrey, 119-122, 167
Partido Civil, 44
Partido Nacional Democrtico, 52
Partido Unin Revolucionaria, 66, 163
paternalistic perspective, 69
Patronato Nacional de Arqueologa, Peru,
53, 140, 166
Patronatos Regionales de Arqueologa, 85
Patterson, Thomas, 89, 167
Paz Soldn, Mariano, 23, 158
Peabody Museum, Harvard, 121
Peace Corps, 97
Pearsall, Deborah, 122
peasant movements, 91
Pease, Franklin, 93, 95, 96, 144
Peoples of Puerto Rico Project, 93
Pepper, William, 34
Prez Jimnez, Marcos, 164
period (archaeological), 72, 86-88, 164
Peru: Incidents of Travel and Exploration
in the Land of the Incas (book), 158
Peru-Cornell Project, 92
Index
Peruvian Amazon, 50, 78

Peruvian archaeology, 29, 31, 37, 68, 69, 74,
81, 82, 85, 86, 103, 109, 114, 125, 135, 139
Peruvian archaeologists, 12, 51, 97, 109,
119, 123, 124, 134, 138, 145-148
Peruvian archaeology, father of, 30, 43,
48
Peruvian Horizon Styles, 35, 78, 87, 89
Peruvian bourgeoisie, 70
Peruvian central highlands, 96, 121
Peruvian coast, 36, 54
Peruvian Congress, 62, 152
Peruvian economy, 84, 91, 106
Peruvian government, 40, 42, 50, 51, 72, 83,
106, 128, 140, 149, 154
Peruvian guerrillas, 85, 91,92
Peruvian history, 39
Peruvian Independence, 44
Peruvian intellectuals, 72
Peruvian Left, 137
Peruvian nation, 21, 45, 126, 142
Peruvian national identity, 27, 55
Peruvian north coast, 44, 53, 55, 69, 75,
78-81, 120, 127, 132, 138, 143, 150, 166
Peruvian prehistory, 35
Peruvian republic, 24, 126, 128, 154, 158
Peruvian scholars, 41, 86, 90, 162
Peruvian Social Archaeology, 109
Peruvian society, 24, 38, 48, 68, 70, 99, 150,
154
Peruvian southern coast, 64, 68, 113
Peruvian state, 23, 39, 40, 43, 49, 55, 68, 69,
92, 126, 127, 128, 140
Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, 22
Peruvianists, 22
Petrie, Flinders, 87
petroglyphs of La Convencin, 62
phase (in archaeology), 89
Philadelphia, 34
philology, 86, 160
Phoebe Hearst, 35, 161
physical anthropology, 50
209
Pikillacta, 62
pilgrimage center, 63
Pizarro, Hernando, 20
Plan COPESCO, 143
Polanyi, Karl, 94, 102, 164
political activism, 129
political activity, 22, 52, 108
political agenda, 22
political constitutions, 22
political context, 44, 71
political discourse, 56
political ideas, 62
political landscape, 84
political movements, 45
political structure, 22, 56
political violence, 137
Politis, Gustavo, 71
Pompeii, 21
Ponce Sangins, Carlos, 108, 110
Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per
(PUCP), 123, 125, 130, 131, 139, 140, 147
campus of, 139
Popol Vuh, 21
populist policies, 71, 84
Porras Barrenechea, Ral, 110
positivism, 111
positivist framework, 31, 35
positivist logic, 118
positivist philosophy of science, 29, 30
positivist tradition, 29, 31
positivist-empiricist framework, 51
postcolonial history, 21
postcolonial identity, 37
postcolonial perspective, 18
postcolonial world, 24
postprocessualism, 121
pottery production, 122
Pozorski, Shelia, 120, 121
Pozorski, Thomas, 120
Pozzi-Escot, Denise, 113
Pozzi-Escot, Muriel, 113
210
Index
Prado y Ugarteche, Manuel, 71, 83, 85

praxis, 90
Precapitalist Economic Formations
(book), 104
preceramic, 89
prehispanic civilizations, 57
prehispanic past, 24, 32, 76, 92
prehispanic societies, 47, 60, 72, 74, 86, 90,
93, 98
Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes
(book), 123
prehistory, 29, 31, 92
pre-Inca civilization, 37
Prescott, William, 159
prestige, 119
prestige goods, 119
principle of association, 30
procapitalist behavior, 70
processualism, 118, 125, 146
processual theory, 119, 124
processualist, 77, 125
processualist archaeology, 116, 118, 121, 124
professional practices, 31
professional archaeologists (in Peru), 110,
130, 145, 155
professionalization of archaeology, 48, 130
Programa Acadmico de Arqueologa of
San Marcos, 130
Programa Collasuyu, 124
Programa Contisuyu, 123, 124
Programa Qhapaq an, 114, 142
progress, 22, 30, 47
Proulx, Donald, 166
Provincial Inca Life Project, 96, 100
Proyecto Especial Naylamp-Lambayeque,
141
Proyecto Arqueolgico e Histrico
Chincha y Pisco, 113
Proyecto Especial Complejo Arqueolgico
de Chan Chan, 141
Proyecto Especial Arqueolgico
Caral-Supe, 143
Prussian government, 33
public archaeology, 153

public universities, 59
Pucar (archaeological site), Cusco, 58
Pueblo Libre, Lima district, 68
Puerto Supe (archaeological site), 161
Pukara (archaeological site), 62, 63
Pukara culture, 57, 63, 65, 69, 74
Pukara style, 64, 65
Punas of Junn, 118
Punkuri (archaeological site), 53
Puno, 56, 57, 63, 124, 161, 169
Puno altiplano, 58, 63, 123, 124
Putnam, Frederic W., 50
Q
Qalasaya (Pukara), 64
Qaluyu (archaeological site), 65
Quechua (language), 63, 136, 160, 164
Quechua culture, 33
Quesnell, Frdric, 27
R
racism, 47, 150, 154, 158
radical Left, 134
Raimondi, Antonio, 23, 26, 158
Ramn, Gabriel, 79, 89
Ramos de Cox, Josefina, 139
Ratzel, Friedrich, 160
Ravines, Rogger, 97, 121
raw materials, 71
reciprocity, 101, 164
Reconstruccin Nacional (period of), 44
Recuay, 158
redistribution, 101, 164
regional survey, 119, 123
regionalism, 57
regional identity, 150
Reindel, Markus, 145
Reiss, Wilhelm, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32-34, 160
relative chronologies, 36, 89
republican democracy, 22
republican ideals, 22
Index
Reunin de Teotihuacn, 107, 112, 113

Revista del Museo Nacional, 64
Revista Universitaria (of Cusco), 59, 63
Reynolds, Robert, 167
Rhode Island School of Design Museum of
Art in Providence, 88
Rick, John, 118, 122
Rio de Janeiro, 114
Ros, Marcela, 113
Riva Agero, Jos de la, 41, 52, 66, 139
Rivero y Ustariz, Mariano Eduardo de,
24-26, 37, 43, 158
Rocha, Javier de la, 96
Rockefeller Foundation, 54
Rojas Pinilla, Gustavo, 164
Romania, 93, 165
Rondas campesinas, 167
Roosevelt, Franklin, 71
Rostworowski, Mara, 93, 95, 96, 144
Rowe, John, 29, 72, 73, 86-90, 93, 95, 110, 111,
161, 165
Roy, Sharat K., 93
Russell, Glenn, 122
Ruta Moche/Moche Route, 144
S
Sacsahuaman, 58
Said, Edward, 28
Salazar, Lucy, 105, 124
salitre, 22, 23
Salta, 33
San Agustn (Colombia), 65
San Jos de Moro Project, 139
San Marcos University, 50, 51, 66, 73, 86, 94,
95, 104, 105, 110-114, 116, 117, 123, 125, 126,
128-132, 134, 135, 138, 147, 148, 161, 167-169
intellectuals of, 44
Snchez Cerro, Luis M., 52, 66, 67, 69, 70,
99, 163
Sanders, William, 120
Sanoja, Mario, 56, 108
Santa Valley, 124
Santiago de Chile (city), 41
211
Sardinia, Italy, 80
savagery, 31
Schaedel, Richard, 68, 85, 95, 111
Schreiber, Katharina, 161
scientific data, 61
scientific meetings, 31
scientific method, 31
scientific publication, 37
scientific report, 32, 64
scientific tradition, 25
Seki, Yuji, 145
Seminario de Arqueologa de Riva Agero,
125, 131, 139
Seminario de Historia Rural Andina, 130
Sendero Luminoso/Shining Path, 101, 118,
122, 124, 128, 135
Seor de Sipn sndrome, 138, 143
Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN), 168
settlement pattern, 76, 77, 118, 119
Seville, 67
Shady, Ruth, 132, 133, 142
Shea, Daniel, 97
Shimada, Izumi, 68, 85, 111, 121
Sicn, 143, 150
Sillar, Bill, 145
Silva, Jorge, 132
Sipn (archaeological site), 142-144, 155
Sipn, Lord of, 18, 127, 138, 143
site catchment analysis, 119
sixteenth century, 28, 60
Smithsonian Institution, 119
social sciences, 61
social change, 45, 51
social class structure, 104
social classes, 23
social complexity, 119
social conflicts, 70
social contract, 119
Social Darwinism, 29, 30, 45
social evolution, 46, 90
Social evolutionism, 45
social materiality, 112
212
Index
social networks, 19
social revolution, 70
social theory, 45, 46, 118
socialism, 106
Socialist Party, Peru, 45
socially significant archaeological unit, 111
Society for American Archaeology (SAA),
145
South America, 28, 33, 35, 56, 58, 71, 92, 93,
112, 113, 137, 152, 160
southern Andes, 43, 73
Southern Peru Copper Corporation, 84,
123, 124
Soviet archaeology, 107
Soviet Union, 47, 84
Spain, 21, 67, 93, 94, 157
Spanish (language), 136
Spanish chroniclers, 20
Spanish colonial period, 21, 56, 89
Spanish Civil War, 94
Spanish Royalist troops, 22
spatial archaeology, 119
Spencer, Herbert, 65
Squier, George, 27, 28, 158, 159
Staff God, 36, 46
stages (in archaeology), 87, 88, 111
Stanish, Charles, 123, 159
Starn, Orin, 101
status, 119
Stevenson, Cornelius, 34
Steward, Julian, 72, 74, 77, 78, 86, 93, 103
stratigraphy, 30
Strong, W. Duncan, 73, 75, 80, 88, 165
structuralism, 121
Stbel, Alphons, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 160
style (in archaeology), 32, 35, 36, 63, 74,
75, 89
sugar cane, 80
Supe Valley, 143
systematic excavation, 31
systems theory, 118
T
Tabo, Ernesto, 107
Tablada de Lurn (archaeological site),
125, 139
Tacna, 41, 161
Talara, port of, 71
Tamayo Herrera, 58
Tambomachay (archaeological site),
Cusco, 58
Tarapac, 23, 158
Tarata Street, Miraflores, 168
Tawantinsuyu, 56, 136, 164
taxonomies, 31
Taylor, Gerald, 60
Tello, Juan, 113
Tello, Julio C., 18, 31, 41, 43, 45-56, 58, 61, 62,
64, 65, 68, 69, 72-79, 81, 85, 86, 103, 109-
111, 113, 115, 130, 140, 149, 153, 161-163, 166
school of, 72
Tempestad en los Andes (book), 59, 62
Teotihuacn Valley Project, 120
Tercer Militarismo/Third Militarism, 66
terrorism, 125, 127, 145
The Great Transformation (book), 94
The Conquest of Peru (book), 159
The Flocks of the Wamani: A Study of
Llama Herders on the Punas of
Ayacucho, Peru (book), 167
The Gallery of Offerings (Chavn de
Huntar), 110
The Northern Dynasties Kingship and
Statecraft of Chimor (book), 121
The Prehistory of Cuba (book), 107
theoretical concepts, 90
theoretical framework, 30, 72, 76, 99
theoretical position, 72
Thompson, Donald, 97
Thomsen, Christian, 31
Three-Age classification, 36
time units, 43
Titicaca Basin, 75
Tiwanaku (archaeological site), 24, 33-37,
63-65, 73, 158, 163
Index
Tiwanaku culture, 47, 74, 98

Tiwanaku Empire, 36, 110
Tiwanaku monoliths, 33
Tiwanaku style, 46, 74, 78
Toledo, Alejandro, 136, 137
tombs, 30, 37, 124, 138, 143
Topic, John, 120
Topic, Theresa, 120, 121
tourism, 138, 142, 145, 150
Tozzer, Alfred, 50
Trade and Market in the Early Empires
(book), 94
tradition (in archaeology), 76
travelers, 27, 28
Trevisan, Paula, 28
Trigger, Bruce, 17, 36, 82
Trujillo (city), 21, 24, 116, 147, 151
Tschudi, Johann Jacob von, 24, 25, 158
Tucum (archaeological site), 142, 144
twentieth century, 31, 43, 44, 46, 47, 55-57,
62, 69, 71, 80, 87, 90, 93, 100, 109, 115, 137,
145, 149
twentieth-century generation, 44, 157
twenty-first century, 135, 136, 138-140
Two Years in Peru, With Exploration of
its Antiquities (book), 159
typology of societies, 118
U
Uceda, Santiago, 126, 132
Uhle, Max, 25, 28-37, 39-43, 46, 47, 51, 54, 61,
65, 73, 78, 88, 90, 143, 159, 160, 162, 165
Ukraine, 93
UNESCO, 113, 140, 143
Unidad Ejecutora Marcahuamachuco, 141
Unidades Ejecutoras/Executive units, 140,
142-144, 147, 169
Unin de Cerveceras Peruanas Backus y
Johnston, 144
United States of America, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37,
45, 46, 50, 54, 67, 70-72, 74, 78, 81, 83-85,
92, 93, 101, 103, 106, 120, 122, 140, 147,
150, 154, 158-160, 164
213
universal evolution, 46
universal principle, 31
Universidad de Concepcin, Chile, 111
Universidad Catlica de Santa Mara de
Arequipa, 123
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 113
Universidad de Hunuco, 99
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina,
168
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, 127, 132,
144
Universidad Nacional Enrique Guzmn y
Valle La Cantuta, 168
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal,
127, 147
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos
(campus of), 40, 128, 130, 131, 133, 139
Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad
del Cusco, 58, 62, 127, 161
Universidad Nacional San Cristbal de
Huamanga, 110, 127, 147
Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga
de Ica, 147
Universidad Nacional Santiago Antnez de
Mayolo, 147
Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona, 113
University of Pennsylvania, 34, 164
University Archaeological Association,
Philadephia, 34
University Museum at Pennsylvannia, 35, 40
University of California at Berkeley, 35, 40,
73, 89, 120, 160, 161
University of California at Los Angeles
(UCLA), 122
University of Chicago, 93, 94, 98
University of Chile, 41
University of Michigan, 122, 123, 167
Upper Mantaro Archaeological Research
Project (UMARP), 120-122
urban elite, 23
urban revolutions, 47, 165
urbanism, 99
Urus (ethnic group), 33, 34
214
Index
US Department of War, 84, 164

US government, 72, 74, 82, 92
utopian view, 100
V
Valcrcel, Luis E., 41, 42, 47, 53, 55-65, 67,
69, 81, 86, 96, 100, 103, 110, 112, 130, 151,
162, 163, 166
Vargas Llosa, Mario, 84
Vargas, Bertha, 123
Vargas, Iraida, 108
Varn Gabai, Rafael, 96
Vassar University, 94
Velarde, Leonid, 113
Velasco Alvarado, Juan, 91, 105, 106, 107, 111,
113, 117, 141, 150
Veloz, Marcio, 108
Venezuela, 107, 164
Veracruz, Pablo de la, 113
vertical archipelago (model), 94, 98, 100,
102, 124
Viceroyalty of Peru, 20, 151
Vicos, 92
Villar Crdova, Pedro, 47, 161
Vir Project, 55, 73, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 92,
143, 166
Vir Valley, 77, 79
W
Wallace, Dwight, 73, 86
War of the Pacific, 23, 44
Wari (archaeological site), 73, 110, 118
Wari (style), 89
Wari Empire, 110
warlords, 22
Watanabe, Luis, 123
Wenner-Gren Foundation, 76, 145
western culture, 28
western Europe, 47, 50, 71
western framework, 43
western model, 28
western perspective, 28
western progress, 31
western science, 29
What Happened in History? (book), 109
White, Leslie, 72
Wiener, Charles, 27, 28, 30, 159
Wiesse, Carlos, 41
Willey, Gordon, 46, 74-80, 118
Wilson, David, 124
Winckelman, Johann Joachim, 31, 36
Wiracocha (god), 65
Wolf, Freda, 97
world cultural patrimony, 114
world expositions, 31
World Heritage Site, 143
World Monuments Fund, 144
World War I, 46
World War II, 42, 46, 55, 71, 72, 74, 82-84,
150, 164
Y
Yacovleff, Eugenio, 68
Yorke, Sara, 34
Yucatn, 93
Z
Ziokowski, Mariusz, 145
Zoological and Anthropological Museum,
Dresden, 32
Zuidema, Tom, 99
Zulen, Pedro, 162
chapter title
215
About the Author and Translator
About the Author

Henry Tantalen was born, raised, and trained in archaeology in Peru. He
received his MA and PhD from Universidad Autnoma de Barcelona in Spain,
and currently teaches at Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
and is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at
UCLA. In addition, he is an Associate Researcher at the Instituto Francs de
Estudios Andinos in Lima and runs a number of archaeological projects in
Peru, including the Chincha Archaeological Project on Perus southern coast.
About the Translator

Charles Stanish is the Director of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and professor of Anthropology at UCLA. He specializes in the evolution of complex
political and economic systems in the pre-modern world, particularly South
America. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and is
a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

Peruvian Archaeology - A Critical History - Henry Tantalean

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peruvian Archaeology - A Critical History - Henry Tantalean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chapter title

Translated by Charles Stanish

Walnut Creek, California

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Left Coast Press, Inc.

Copyright 2014 by Left Coast Press, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

isbn 978-1-61132-991-9 hardback

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Printed in the United States of America

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Chapter 11. Peruvian Archaeology at the Beginning of

background, Pachacamac, Lima. 54

Figure 15. Luis E. Valcrcel at Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1923. 59

site in Bolivia, 1973. 95

Figure 25. Peruvian scholars at the Art Museum of Lima, 1997. 96

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Figure 29. San Marcos Universitys Museum of Archaeology

inauguration, 1969. 112

Lima, 2000. 133

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

his book is a synthesis of the work I have done throughout my life,

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Introduction: The Crisscrossed Past

he history of archaeology can be seen as a large and open field

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Introduction: The Crisscrossed Path

This book seeks to historicize Peruvian archaeology within a critical

The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru

The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

climate. In the absence of precolumbian documents, Peruvianists would

Peru in the Nineteenth Century

The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru

political, and ideological practices (particularly the Catholic religion), the

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

that time, the Peruvian governments priorities were understandably focused

Archaeology in the Nineteenth Century

The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Ustariz and Johan Jacob von Tschudi.

The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru

begin to recognize the importance of archaeology for Peruvian national

Figure 4. Wilhelm Reiss.

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

It is critical to note that these foreign travelers to the Andean world

The (Western) Foundation of Peruvian Archaeology:

espite the contributions of those mentioned in the previous

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

enthusiastically adopted social Darwinism. Social Darwinism served as a

Figure 5. Max Uhle.

The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

Uhle and the First Horizon Concept:

The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology

Figure 7. Adolph Bastian.

Berlin Museum. Uhle knew Stbel

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology

Figure 8. Phoebe Hearst, circa 1890.

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History

The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology

Uhle and the National History Museum of Peru

Peruvian Archaeology: A Critical History