Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes Edited by Mark 8. Aldenderfer University ofTowa Press YP towa CityDomestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past in the South-Central Andes Mark §, Aldenderfer and Charles Stanish Resumen La arquitectura doméstica es una categoria de informacién, ‘muy til; se puede usar para investigar problemas de gran interés en la arqueologia de los Andes sud-centrales, tales como la identificacin de la complementaridad vertical, el Aesarrollo de grupos éites y los origenes de grupos étnicos. ste informe define conceptos importantes como la arqut- rectura doméstica, la organizaci6n de la familia y etnicidad, Joa infor a nq volumen. This book is about the relationship between domestic architecture, ethnicity, households, and economic com- plementarity. The setting is the south-central Andes, a region defined as stretching north-south from the Rio Majes in southern Pers to Taltal in northern Chile and cast-west from the Pacific coast to the vallwna, or selva, on the eastern flanks of the Andes in Bolivia (Aldenderfer 19894; fig. 1.1). More specifically, the papers in this vol- ume focus on two areas: the western valleys ofthe Pacific watershed and the Titicaca basin. Two valleys figure prominently in the papers—the Moquegua (or Ostore) of southern Peru, and the Azapa of northern Chile (fig. 1.2). Both have been the focus of intense archaco- logical studies for more than a decade (see, for example, Hidalgo ct al. 1989 and Rice, Stanish, and Scarr 1989). In both, research has been conducted from the coast to the puna and across all major time periods, thus offer- ing an unprecedented opportunity to examine cultural change and transformation in this important environ- rental transect. Likewise, two portions of the Titicaca basin are tepresented—the south shore of the lake around the modern city of Juli in southern Peru and the area surrounding the major site of Tiwanaku in Bolivia (fig. 1.3). Like the Moquegua and Azapa valleys, the Ti- ticaca basin has long been a focus of archaeological re- search, with new, major research projects initiated inthe 1980s (see Kolata 1986, 1991), ‘As most Andeanists know, the south-central Andes as Been The scene oF Consicerabte ert - search, and among the many important scholars who have worked in the region, probably the most influential has been John Murra. In a series of papers published from the 1960s to the present, Murra has argued that the late pre-Hispanic and immediately post-Conquestin- digenous societies in this region practiced what has been She eli ozo emma. His model cation of aitemapied 16 Broaden thelr subsistence and fac by obtaining aczeseto prodversffam other produc i Macea's model, puna-based societies reliant iy upon tuber production and camelid pastoral- ‘ism attempted fo control, Vir the establishment of eth- nic enclaves, or colonies, the subsistence production of 2, jy Wid other lowland products in the western alle of HEN “the Andean slopes. Ie shouldbe clear that, itr “Dart, the success or failure of this model as_an explana- tion of che past rests upon ihe ability to demonstrate the existence of thse enclaves. “Traditionally, this model has been tested through the use of antifacts and high-status goods found cither in2 Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past BoLivia ARGENTINA Figure 1.1. The south-central Andes. public architecture or burial contexts. However, as one ‘of us has argued, this approach to the problem suffers from a number of defects, the most telling of which is simply that artifacts are highly mobile (Stanish 19898). ‘They are traded, exchanged, heirloomed, and lost, and thus, as clear and unambiguous measures of ethnicity, they leave much to be desired. Itis not that the artifacts themselves lack indicators of ethnicity, since ethnoar- chaeologieal research bas abundantly demonstrated that “style” can serve as a social or ethnic marker, but rather that because they are’mobile they are freqently not found in the zone of production and therefore do not necessarily represent some “local,” ethnic entity. This problem is exacerbated by many archaeologists who fail to distinguish or uncritically examine as a coherent assemblage artifacts obtained from different contexts. Mortuary contexts in the Andes frequently contain spe- cial, often exotic and fonlocal ceramic types that are not found in kitchen middens or other refuse (Lumbreras 1974b; Stanis ithout the use of proper cau- tions, these artifacts can give a false reading of the ethnic affiliations of the dead whom they accompany. ‘We argue thar the study of domestic architecture, com- bined with traditional archaeological practice, is a po- tentially powerful means of testing not only the hypothe- sis of zonal complementarity in the south-central Andes but also a number of other problems of current interest, such as the identification of ethnic groups, the causes of stability and change in household composition and size, and much more. As a number of scholars have noted, there are many distinct forms of complementarity (Salo- mon 1985}, and while Andeanists have a special interest in the concept, itis best to think of complementarity as a broad, anthropological principle that refers to the at- tempt of societies as simple a6, tobile foragersor as complex as empires stence risk, expand their productive capacity aad political hegemony, or seck marriage partners (Aldenderfer 19894; Spielmann 1986). While the Specific dimensions of complementarity vary with sociopolitical and soci many of its forms are concemed number of Andean societies practice a form of comple- méntarity that is based solely on kin relationships and the ability to make mastiages, ard thus economic tes, to groups living in other productive zones, Although this may or may not involve distinct “ethnic” groups, it may well affect the size or composition of the household itself. New individuals will be added to the household, and new space or structures may be required to house them. Changes may also occur in the structure of activity per- formance as well or in its spatial location. In short, there is good reason to be concerned with the houschold as a possible means of accessing other forms of complemen- ‘arity relationships. ~ Domestic, or residential, architecture is here defined as those stmuctures,-facilities, activity and work areas, and re associated, with the anth pola “itis clear that other individuals not a part of the house- hold may live there, or that hoilsehold members may iain residence elsewhere (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 5 see Rice, this volume). At the minimum, domestic architecture is simply-skélter, but it is obvious that it can bbe much more, depending on the size and range of eco- nomic functions performed by that Household. What is important to stress, however, is that domestic architec- ture is an empirical concept (arr indirect observable,Honsebold Archaeology, and she Past 3 Figure 1.2. ‘The Osmore (or Moquegea) drainage, showing the location ofthe sites discussed in this4 Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past BOLIVIA \ \ Titicoca \& 7 wuaduera riwallaxy Figure 1.3. The Titicaca basin, showing the location of the sites discussed in this volume.Dontestic Architecture, sensu Kaplan 1964), and the variability in the use of space, building materials, facility placement and loéa- ‘ions, anid associated aftifacts within and.near the com- plex of domestic structures is used to infer household or- ganization and activity. Wilk and’Rathje (1982: 620) ave drawn a similar distinction. Our perspective is also comparable to the definition of the “household unit” by Flannery (1983: 45)—"the complex of structures and features resulting from a typical houschold’”—and the “household elustes” by Winter (1976: 25). It should be obvious that the definition of what com- prises domestic architecture and the way in which house- holds are inferred once domestic architecture has been identified are not necessarily straightforward, but the comparison of context and argument by analogy seems to be critical to the process. For instance, Winter (1976: 25) describes the “typical” household cluster of the For- ative Period in the Valley of Oaxaca as consisting of “one house, va to six large storage pits, one to three graves, and various additional features separated from the nearest contemporary cluster by an open arca of 20~40 meters.” Context here is defined through exten- sive excavation, and comparison is made with similarly excavated areas through the resolution of key empirical questions such as the form and content of the dwelling, the range_of functions performed within and near it, the spatial extent of che dwelling and associated activity areas ad BEFUCTURES, ane tHe pron - hold clusters or differently configured clusters of struc itares, such as public architecture. Analogy, employed ‘through whatever paradigm is operative in the research design, is used to evaluate the working hypothesis that the cluster in question reflects a household or instead is better thought of as some other analytical unit. Domestic architecture is a distinct and independent class of data useful in testing archaeological models as, fineware pottery, decorated textiles, and the like. Domes tic architectural styles ean be analyzed in a similar man- ner. Styles, for instance, can be grouped into types, sta- tistically manipulated, and compared with other classes of data for goodness of fir with proposed models or hypotheses “The use of domestic architectural style in addressing problemsin Andean archaeology has a number of advan- tages over other classes of data. First, domestic architec ture is not portable, unlike most artifacts encountered by the archaeologist. The style of construction, then, bar- ring abandonment and subsequent reuse, therefore un: equivocally represents the resident population, Smaller _parisons of diff Housebold Archaeology, and the Past S objects, such as ceramic vessels, metal objects, wooden artifacts, of textiles, may be the product of complex ex change relationships, and their occurrence in sites does not necessarily reflect local styles of.production but in- stead the operation of an exchange system with “for. ign” groups. The style of domestic architecture, how- ever, represents local cultural preference because there is litle dove rat the resident population constiticted the “dwelling: Cilltiiral or “ethnic” differences between soci- ties iiay well be reflected in the nature, size, compos tion, ind, most importantly, material fearures of the structure and its facilites. ‘second advantage of this class of data is its scale. As a unit of analysis, domestic architecture is intermediate in scale between settlement data’and excavation data. “The household infersed from the analysis of the struc tures represents the primary socioeconomic group in An. dean society (Stanish 1989). At an analytical level, itis a corporate group of less complexity than the aylluyor village, bit is obviodsly-‘more comiplex than the indi- ‘vidual artisan’ and areas OF Specialized activity within sites. ‘A third advantage is comparability. The consistent use of the household as an analytical unit standardizes com- ent sites and different time periods. The ‘corporate groups responsible for the manufacture and distribution of actifacts found in archaeological contexts, ‘i ¢ time The only exception to thi isthe househola ‘A final advantage of using domestic architecture as an independent class of data is the. accessibility of surface _ architecture in. many areas of the Andes, Sufface map- ping of structure foundations and broad exposures of excavation units are usualy sufficient to define the range of variability that characterizes architectural pattems. Tn this manner, “ideal” architectural plans can be iden- tified and then compared both within and between settlements, ‘The limitations of the_use of domestic architecture mast also be recognized. To benefit fully from the ap- proach, extensive excavation is frequently required, es- pecially ifthe household and its activities and thei trans- formation through time are the topic of interest, The spatial extent of the Early and Middle Formative house hold cluster in the Valley of Oaxaca has been estimated 6 be 300 m: (Winter 1976: 25}; to excavate simply this area and, more importantly, to excavate a number of these areas so that effective comparisons of context can be made may be prohibitively expensive for most proj-6 Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past ‘ects, While this problem is exacerbated by the increas ingly large scale of villages, towns, and major centers iypical of more complex societies, it cannot be avoided even in simpler foraging societies, in which contempora- neous household clusters ay be separated by hundreds of meters (Whitelaw 1991). However, if ethnic afflia- tion is the focus of investigation, extensive excavation ay not be required (see below). Likewise, idiosyncratic variation in consteuction.ox conscious efforts to imitate nonlocal architectural styles_to. enhance social “status ‘may complicate matters and muddy the emergence 6f patteming, but these problems can be generally over- come through effective sampling designs. Domestic architectural data, thei, can be used, just like ceramics, to discover meaningful, variation and change in both space and time. To make this case, however, we miist fist define two important terms— household‘and etbnicity—and then relate them to the themes ofthis book. : Houscholds The household is a concept that has been defined and redefined by ethnographers, ethnologists, sociologists, istorians, ad archaeologists. While we do not propose “to yet again define the tec, a brief review of the salient characteristics ofthe household isin order, especially for the archaeologist interested in defining them on the basis of material culture. Households share three common characteristics: do- mestic functions, co-residentiality, and some form of fa- milial relationship (Bender 1967). Of the three, only the” figst two are easily accessible to the archaeologist. Do- «itestic funetions, such as cooking, storing, processing, sleeping, and such, are relatively easy to “‘see” archaeo- logically, since they leave durable remains or involve the construction of facilities to perform them. Co-residence, however, is somewhat less tractable but can be inferred through the repeated, regular co-occurrence within sites of structures with domestic features. Tt can also be in- ferred through the identification of artifacts that pertain to the sexual division of labor or those things that are clearly toys and belong to children. The ability to discern family relationships depends on the existence of mortu ary remains.and.the.careful study of ostcological evi- dence to demonstrate the presence of genetically related individuals. While archacologists have ihade «-numbef of attempts 0 define the sociological structure of ar- chaeological households, primarily through the analysis of stylistic motifs on ceramics, most have fallen short of their goal Four primary household funetions have been identi- fied: production, through which people obtain resources; distribution, in which that which is produced is either distributed within the household or to a larger sociopo- litical entity; transmission, involving the transference of property, rights, or roles; and finally eproduction, which centers upon child cate and socialization, (Wilk and Rathje 1982: 622=631). Onily production and distribu tion are generally visible in the archaeological record. ‘While obvious, itis important to stress that house- holds within any society will vary across a number of sig- nificant social dimensions, such as wealth, status, and degree of economic diversification, In simpler societies, siich’ a8 mobile foragers, most household units should look the same. However, with the advent of sedentariza tion and the integration of the houschold into village- and regional-scale economies, we can expect to find variation in household size and composition, an increase in domestic structure size or in numbers of structures used by the household, and building of special-purpose structures to house craft activities or surplus accumula- tion. Despite this potential variability, however, the basic ‘esidential plan will remain more or less the same, and ani‘ideal” Forna of domestic residence can usually be de- fined (Bawden 1982) “Therefore, itis necessary to carefully identify the em- pirical indicarors of houscholds; that is, the characteris tics of domestic architecture that are used to infer house- hhold structure and its variability. Perhaps the most important are (1) the numbers and sizes of structures in use, (2) the use.of space both within structures and out- side them, (3) types of facilities employed and their spa at distribution, and (4) facility or artifactural indicators of the Fange Of activities performed. While other indica- tors of wealth status, size, and economic diversity can be posited, many of these, such &s decorationyare perishable (Rapoport 1969, 1980) and thus are generally of little value to the archaeologist. ‘Whatever the cultural context, however, its lear that most of the primary determinants of houschold strac~ ture, composition, and form can be inferred from mate- rial culture. While some archaeologists, such as Hodder {1982), have argued that because of the lability of sym- bolic communication itis essentially impossible to infer sociological entities such as the household with any ac- curacy, Wylie (1989: 105-107) and others, using the no- tion of “qualified abjectivism,” have shown that such"Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past 7 definitions are indeed possible and plausible when care is taken to specify the constraints and the context of the problem at hand. Ethnicity Everyone knows what ethnicity is, but there is litle agreement on just what a definition of the term should include. Rather than focusing upon a potentially sterile definition, ie is more valuable to look for critical features of ethnic groups and then to make some effort to deter- rine to what extent ethnicity can be read and interpreted from the archaeological record. Most authors agree that c groups are, social groups, often based. on situa 83), thereby having a potentially lage field, anid; further, they are defined by ascription (Barth 1970: 14), meaning that they ate defined both within groups as well as berween groups. That iy in viduals see thernselves as distinct from other individuals of different “ethnic” groups. This emphasis on ascription by the individuals themselves is highly important, be- cause it means that there RO hevessairy equivalence be- tween ethnic units and cultural differences. While Barth (1970: 14) suggests that there are, at least analytically, two distinct eypes of cultural contents that serve to define “ethnic differences (overt signs, including dress, house fori {emphasis added), and language, and basic value ‘Orientations), there is nothing in theory or From first principles that defines just how ethnic groups necessarily define themselves and are in turn defined by others. What this means, simply, i that there ig no such thing as an ethnic group “out there” to be precisely and unambigu- ously defined. The problem for the archaeologist is obvious: if eth- nicity is_a_ self-referential, situational concept, we are joing to have great difficulty finding it represented in the archaeological record. The vehicle of the “archaco~ logical culture,” thought by practitioners of the cultural historical “approach to archacology characteristic of much of the twentieth century (Dunnell 1986: 33-34) to be analogous to ethnographically defined and observed cultures, has been found to be wanting both theoretically and empirically and therefore is not a useful pursuit for the archaeologist interested in ethnicity (Shennan 1989 5-14). What may be of greater value is the search for ethnicity inthe stylistic variation of material cultare, par- ticularly by the definition of so-called emblemic style (Wiessner 1983: 257; Shennan 1989: 17-22). Emblemie _styleis variation in material culture that is desig dt __send a message to other individuals about the social or cultural identity of the makers of the object—in other iid, it defines boundaries and separates, a least con- ceptually, individuals of different social entities from one another. Emblem style, if itis indeed amenable to ar- chacological analysis, would appear to be an ideal way to define potential ethnic differences in the archaeologi- cal tecord, but unfortunately-the, situation is not so simple. There is algo assertive style)or that variation in ‘material culture that eihcamicjously or unconsciously describes individual identity (Wiessner 1983: 258), and finally isochrestie variation (Sackett 1982), which is the ne ase af particular forms of repre- fation, one that is said to carry considerable symbolism.” What is most important about isochrestic “yaFiatiON aS a marker. of ethnicity is.that it arises from tional, automatic ways.of making or decorating ‘things that arise primarily through enculturation (Shen- nan 1989: 19) ‘The key to disencangling these types of “style,” then, is through the analysis of context—how objects are in fact used and the kinds of messages sent (Wiessner £983). While this type of analysis is exceedingly dificult, it is nevertheless possible, especially if Wyle’s (1989) saialified objectivisin i recalled and pressed into service. Since it has been demonstrated with ethnoarchaeological data that itis possible so.identify emblemic style {Wiess- er 1988), the careful anc considered se of the-con= cept in an archaeological context is both feasible and worthwhile Architecture and Fi icity The use of domestic architecture as a major method- ological tool in south-central Andean studies obviously hinges upon the degree co, which domestic architecture can be reliably said to reflect ethnicity. Therefore, we rust explore the degree to which, domestic architecture ccan express emblemic or assertive style or more simply reflects isochrestic variation. By expressing this question as.a matter of atyle, we are attempting to explore the po- tential theoretical basis for the'use of domestic architec ture’as a reflection of ethnicity. However, we mist stress that this theoretical assertion must be tested as an em= pirical matter, one that must be investigated within the context of the spatial variation in all forms of material culture, not just architecture. This conforms with the no- tion of identification by comparison developed by Wiess- ner (1989). z8 — Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past AAs we have argued above, domestic architecture may well have stylistic features that can be used to determine the ethnic or cultural affiliations of its builders. Under what sorts of contexts would this assertion be valid? To, answer this question, we must frst discuss other factors that may influence the form of domestic architecture, Be fore so doing, it is important to specify what exactly we mean by form. We choose, atleast for simplicity’s sake, to focus on the empirical dimensions of form. Aspects of this discussion overlap with Rapoport’ (1980: 291 296) contention that the form of domestic architecture has four dimensions: the organization of communica tion, time, space, and meaning, Form includes the shape df the'sifticture and its dimensions, the organization of space (number of structures or roms, the placement of facilities, the kinds of activities performed within differ- ent kinds of spaces), ratios of room sizes, and the connec tivity and orientation of structures of rooms (ie are there déorways, halls, etc., and ifso, where do they lead). Each of these is easily observed in the archaeological rec ord, and the composite of their expression is the empici cal statement of the form of domestic architecture. ‘One of the most obyious determinants of. form is cli ‘mate, but as Rapoport (1969) and others have noted, ite does not seem determinative of thespecific forms of ‘houses, although it may play some modifying role. Like -wise, thexange of building matefials preient are best seen ‘as modifiers, rather than determiners, of house shape (Rapoport 1969: 26), Similarly, status or social factors are, probably. also seen-as‘modifying, rather than deter- ‘mining, thé form of domestic architecture, While large households are likely to have lager domestic structures than smaller ones, household size or organization cannot predict the form of that structure. In short, while many factors can be seen as modifying the form of domestic architecture, only ethnicity or cultural afiliation can be said to influence structural form in a direct way. Conrad (this volume} summarizes this position nicely in his dis cussion of Estuquifia Phase domestic architecture. If ethnicity. (ox “culture” is determinate, what are the contexts in south-central Andean prehistory in which we can expect ste to reflect ethnic distinctions? What we are asking here is the degsse to.sehich domestic archi- tecture willbe used asiemblemic style, rather than as a- sertive style of isochrestic.variation. One of thé most obvious contexts is the establishment of classic zonal complementarity ia the western valleys of the Andes (sce below). Colonists or mere setters are likely to bring their architectural canons with them as an expression of eth- nic or cultural difference. Similarly, if state organizations impose colonists in other regions, we may also expect domestic architecture to. become emblemic in che mes- sage it sends. That Andean states attempted, at least in some instances, to maintain ethnic distinctions in colo- nized or otherwise conquered regions is testified to in the ethnohistorical record, Julien (1983: 4445}, in describ “ing ethnic variation in the Titicaca basin, notes that the Inca encouraged colonists to. maintain their styles of dress further, she notes that sanctions were applied to individuals who broke these codes. While the example she uses is Colla headdress and head deformation, it is also possible to hypothesize a similar role for domestic architecture. Under these circumstances, distinct archi- tectural forms most probably can be read as signaling ethnic differences and accordingly analyzed. Applications in Andean Archacology ‘We identify five sets of archaeological problems in the south-central Andes which the analysis of domestic ar- chitecture can be particularly useful in resolving. These problems center on (1) testing models of zonal comple mentarity, (2) defining the processes of core-periphery re ips in imperial contexts, (3) defining the proc- i386 Of elite group formation in pre-Hispanic contexts, (4) analyzing. changes.in the structure and composition cof houscholds that may reflect suprahouschold organ- iaational changes, and (5) examining the processes of ethnic group formation. It should be obvious that these pidblem areas are to some extent overlapping, and that further they complement some of the problem do- mains proposed by Rathje (1983) for the study of Maya households. Zonal Complementarity ‘Models of zonal complementarity or.vecticality comprise some of the most successful theoretical tools in Andean studies, and a huge literature exists concerning these ‘models (for an excellent synthetic review of the concept of veticality, see Salomon 1985). For our purposes here, ‘we wish to emphasize the central role that ethnicity plays in zonal covmpleniestarity models. Classic direct comple- sientarity (Muza 1964) involves the maintenance of dis- _Gfete ethnic populations intermixed with others over a of complementary ecological zones. The resul's a hnic énclayes over a landscape. In some cases, control is ¢Hected through the establishment of colonists from one productive zone into another. The de- fee to which these colonists maintain their original eth- nic identity can be measured, we believe, in great partDomestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past 9 by. the kinds of domestic strucmres they build. What is clearly cequiced for the success ofthe test ofthis hypothe- sis is to identify clear, contemporaneous differences in domestic architecture within one productive zone, and then to discover the source of one of these residential pat- terns in some other zone. This type of research isthe fo- cus of Goldstein, Stanish, and Conrad, Goldstein is con- cerned with defining the nature of Tiwanaku settlement in the middle Moquegua deainage and has employed studies of both domestic architecture and house content to argue that the site of Omo reflects the presence of al= tiplano colonists in the valley. In contrast, Stanish and his colleagues, working in the Titicaca basin near Juli are concerned with defining the typical residential patterns ‘of: domestic structures of Late Intermediate Period sites, In previous research, he has rejected the notion that Lu- paqa colonists penetrated portions of the upper Moque~ gua drainage during the Late Intermediace Period (Stan ish 1989a, 1989b). While his hypothesis is plausible, ix lacks one of the components necessary for a complete test of the model—the definition of the source of the dif- ferent pattern of domestic architecture. This paper re pots on his recent efforts to define che highland sources of “foreign” domestic. architecture-in the Moquegua drainage. Conrad, in his analysis of the contemporary Late Inteémediate sites of Estuquifia and San Antonio, provides additional local support for the rejection of the hypothesis of Late Intermediate Lupaqa coVonists in the Moquegua drainage. Models of indircet complementarity, such as those that posit the eistence of trade or exchange. relationships that may'Fitiay not be controlled by some centralized authority, also rely upon definitions of ethnic groups, ‘While some models may require trade relations between either afinal or consanguifiea kin living in diferent pro- ductive zones, proposed that such trade is in ‘the hands of different “peoples.” In this case, itis neces- sary to define the existeicé OF at least two distinct ethnic ‘groups, each of which ive in different zones, This isthe focus of Mufioz’s research in the Azapa valley of north- cern Chile. Using domestic architecture as well as artifac- -tual and subsistence evidence, he has argued for the long term development of two distinct peoples—lowlanders, who utilized the littoral and inland valleys, aiid high- landers, who lived in the high sierra and puna. Core-Periphery Relationships A related methodological problem centers on defining, the relationships between core imperial territories and their colonial citiers:in their provinces. In the south- central Andes, the Tiwanaku state had expanded its influence to an area of more than 400,000 km? by ‘Ap, 800. The nature of that “influence” remains highly Tiwanaku expansion are panisms of imperial control range from the gious integration to complex forms ie exchange (Berenguer, Castro, and 1981). ‘The methodological problem of modeling core-periph- cry relationships therefore centers oi the ability to dis- ‘riminate between various integrative mechanisms. The usé of domestic architectural data can help to resolve some of these problems. In the case of colonies, for in stance, we would expect to see distinct and intrusive do- restic architectoral styles that contrast with those char- jose models in which other integrative mechanisms are of paramount impor- tance, domestic architecture should remain more or less constant through time, although it may become more complex if household functions or composition become more complex. The use of domestic architectural data is superior to other classes of data such as ceramic Finewares and high- status items. This is because both of these artifact types will be cizculated to peripheral zones in either a colonial cor exchange-based model of imperial politcal economy. These high-status items will be found in both models ei- TEE TAGiTeCY CHTOUBN exCHANgE BOWER aMOTTON polities or through complex redistribution and/or recip- +rocal relationships between an administrative site and lo- ‘al setlements. In contrast, domestic architectural styles vill vary accordingly to che nacure ofthe relationship be- tween core and periphery. ‘The most powerful methodological strategy is a con- textual one that centers.on the household and includes ail relevant classes of data. That is, the houschold becomes the basic unit of analysis, and other data (ccr- amie finewares, textiles, etc.) are evaluated within this context. The significance of these objects for testing cote- periphery models therefore varies according to the con- text in which they are found. Tomb contexts tend co represent interregional exchange mechanisms whereas id to contain fa fewer exotic items “unless their inhabitants are of high status or are wealthy (Stanish 19892: 13). Those culturally distinct objects found in domestic. contexts are therefore more likely to represent local stylistic traditions. While specific applications of these contextual approaches must be farther refined, we feel that without question 2 con- textual methodology based around the household is10 superior to-current ones. employed in. the south-central Andes. Of the essaysin the volume, Goldstein and Van Buren, Biirgi, and Rice approach this theme most closely. Gold- stein, as noted above, has argued strongly that Omo isin fact a Tiwanaku colony and presents data supporting this asvertion, His feld research closely approximates the prescriptions offered above for contextual research based upon the household, Van Buren and her associates look _at residential patterns at Torata Alta, a Late Horizon site in the upper Moquegua drainage. While the dating of the it@ remains Somewhat problematic, itis clear that the site is a planned settlement and was established either theoiigh Tika of Spanish influence. Whatever the mech- aiism-of-formatién, the authors conclude that the site was occupied most probably by Lupaga settlers late in the Late Horizon. The degree to which this site can be said to be a colony, however, remains unresolved, ‘The Formation of Elite Groups A virtually unused methodological strategy for under- standing the complex processes surrounding the evolu- tion of hierarchy in the pré-Hispanic Andes isa researcli design based upon an analysis of domestic architecture: In theiz work in the upper Mantaro valley, Costin and Earle she impact the Jak: thad on lox cal sociopolitical structures. In particular, the strength- «ening ofthe local cite groups relative to their community ‘ava whole by identification with the Inka state is clearly ‘manifest in changes in the domestic architectural plan on the loca sites: “The “Inkancization of loca elites is seen farther ina shift in archtectusal style. In Wanka Il (the presInka period), weit simple, gular etre ‘typical Differences berween lite and commoner housing were primarily in the fineness of che masonry and che size ofthe patio group. fo, Wonka ), while commoner housing continued iy unchanged in form, elies began building some rectangular structure with inteiog trapezoidal niches Ther se of local cs became marked not dvrough us tymbob bs bysslene to he oka sates perhaps to stretch the point, became legitimized oy deni iri torre ania This lengthy quote dramatically illustrates the sensi- tivity of domestic architectural patterns to some larger Domestic Architecture, Household Archavology, and the Past cultural process of enormous importance to contempo- _, rary archaeological theory. The nature of Wankai elite control ‘with their in- ships outside their society was destroyed under Inka rule, their inten appears to have actualy increased “With the backing of Inka state authorities. This classic instance OF a Secondary state formation process can be documented by a research design based upon the analysis of changing structure form, Stability and Change in Household Organization Households of course, do not exist within a vacuum but are instead embedded ina sociocultural milieu of varying omiplexity: Oe of the key questions in south-central “Kndean axchaeology, or for that matter the archaeology ‘of whatever region, is the degree to which changes in the broader fabric of society are reflected at the household level, While this question is hardly news, the emphasis on domestic a cone of che means of understand- ing this problem represents a new direction in research. “The empirical indicators of form of domestic architec- 5 of haeologist a wealth of new possibilities t the “for te exploration of this problem. For instance, Rathje “den? Rath “TIBBBY questions to what degree the rulers of classic Maya society were functions!” or ¢“fungal.” Such a “Guestion betrays the fa¥ larger problem concerning the utility of functionalist versus structuralise explanations in prehistory. That is, did the elite provide benefits to society, or did they simply sponge off ‘and act as.a bur- oses to fest this dichotomy with mea- “sures of household well-being: Although he does not spe- Gfically include afehitectté, itis obvious that changes in Size aid range of activities pérformed within households say well ellect the relationship of that household to the wider world. A similag question is concerned with the ise of craft specialization, usually considered to be a hallmark of oitplex societies, Specialization itself has a number of ‘dimensions, some of which are relevant toa concern with _ houschold archaeology and domestic architecture. These are the locus of productioi aid the scale of that produc- tion (Brumfiel and Earle 1987: 5). Are crafts organized within the household? If so, are many housebolds active in craft production? What is the nature of local and regional variability in craft production? Are specialist households wealthier than their nonspecialist counter- parts, or have specialists become specialists simply due toa lack of other options? t-Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past The degree to which houscholds are articulated with the surrounding world is an important topic. Some households, due to differences in wealth, size, or oppor- tunity, are more connected to the broader world, and it js obvious that some of the measures of household well- being proposed by Rathje are relevant here. Bermann, in his discussion of household archaeology at Lukurmata, demonstrates that households remain remarkably stable in terms of functions despite significant sociopolitical changes taking place around them. That is, while the Fiouschold may be integeated into the wider sphere of ex change and tribute, the effects of changes in the forces cannot easily be deduced from domestic architecture or the debris found within it ‘Changes in social organization itself may be reflected by changes in domestic architecture. Many Andeanists have argued that dual organization's characteristic of so- cial structures in the Andes aid, further, that this form of (Netherly and Dillehay 1986). Alehough individial households may not reflect this type of organization, it is clear that the study of aggregates of houscholds and structures offers, {great potential for answering this question. Bawden, in his analysis of changes in domestic architecture at the _Tumilaca stein the Moquegua drainage, presents & com- “Pelling case for the role of both ethnicity and the devel- opment of dual orga alin changes in the Tuchitecture from the late Tiwanakw occupation of The site to the ithmediate post-Tiwariaka period. Similarly, Aldenderfer argues that domestic dithiternuxe: monitors highland and lowland Torag rity relationships between sin the upper. Sonata .of.comple- mmentaity. However, change in this system to one of balanced reciprosiry, a change which domestic architecture reflects very well. The Formation of Ethnic Groups The Spaniards, entering the Titicaca basin in the six- teenth century, were impressed by, and conseqiieily ré* corded, what they perceived as ethnic variation in the re- gion (Julien 1983). Among the groups said to exist were Colla, Lupaga, and Pacajes, among others, While it is *poisible to argue about the degree to which these distinc- tions were truly ethnic, it can nevertheless be asserted that, there was considerable cultural diversity in the re- ¢gion, atleast part of which was ethnic in character. “dwellers i th a Ichas only been within the past decade, however, that scholars have gins of ethnic groups, and there isa growing belief that ethnic groups arise ont of the of. Some, such as Shennan (1989: 17), have argued that there is no such thing as ethnicity “outside the orbic of early states.” While it is certainly clear that there are likely to hiave been ethnic distinctions in the orbits of carly states (Smith 1986), itis equally clear that the ques- tion is far from being settled. Most of these recent argu ments focus upon an important facet of the definition of ethnicity—the self-ceferencing recognition of personal difference. Shennan (1989: 16), citing Bentley (1987), notes that when powerful external forces begin to break down traditional modes af organization, such as kinship and faiily”siructure, individuals. begin to develop a clearer sense of their own individuality,that is, an assess- ment of similatties and differences based on personal characteristics. : ‘Whatever the strengths or shortcomings of this theo- retical position, it is possible to test the model, and domestic architecture is of major importance in this process. If this model is correct, there should be no de- monstrable.cthnic differences in south-central Andean reopls pris to the oeaiaton of the polities (ca. 200 x tecture may not be homogeneous across this EGIOW Ta PRET iwanilew ies, Shout HEvETTIESS WOT ‘be used as an ethnic marker—that is, whatever variation ~“Giisis should Be ire isochrestic variation in form and ‘kes indicaitve oF caleures. The essay by Wise most closely reflects this theme. ‘Through a detailed analysis of domestic architecture and household refusé, she makes a strong claim that during Late Intermediate Period times there existed a group of lacustrine-focused peoples living on the lake margins in {he Southern Titicaca basin. The style of construction of the domestic architect of these peoples strongly re- sembles the houses of thé Uru and Chipaya, modern Jake “Although more datarare necessary, ihe iimplication is strong that we are looking at ethnic variation, What is even more Tnteresting is that there is “the possibility that the lacustrine-focused economy and the circular domestic architecture existed int pre- sak times as well. While domestic architecture is not a methodological panaces for the south-central Andes or any other region, it nevertheless offers distinct advantages to the archae- cologist working with a variety of problems, ranging from the organization of the household itself to the relation:12 Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past ship of that household tothe politcal entities with which itis afliated. There i good theoretical reason to believe that domestic archirectute in fact represents ethnic varia~ tion; however, it must be stressed again that despite this ‘theoretical possibility, architecture must e empirically demonstrated as monitoring eihiiciy aid not simply assumed. We believe that the essays assembled in this volume demonstrate the promise of the use of domestic architec- ture, and we hope they will stimulate other Andeanists to consider this powerful category of data in their own studies.