Ucalgary 2013 Narvaez Jose

University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2014-01-31
Pre-colonial Irrigation and Settlement Patterns in

Three Artificial Valleys in Lima – Peru
Narváez, José
Narváez, J. (2014). Pre-colonial Irrigation and Settlement Patterns in Three Artificial Valleys in
Lima – Peru (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
doi:10.11575/PRISM/27399
http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1359
doctoral thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Pre-colonial Irrigation and Settlement Patterns in Three Artificial Valleys in Lima – Peru
by
José Joaquín Narváez Luna
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
CALGARY, ALBERTA
DECEMBER, 2013
© José Joaquín Narváez Luna 2013

ABSTRACT
This investigation consist in the analysis of the southwest section of the lower Rimac
River Valley, located in the Peruvian Central Coast, where three artificial valleys,
generated by three main irrigation channels named La Magdalena, Maranga, and La
Legua, originated from a single mother channel from the River. The objectives of this
work were to establish the occupation sequence and settlement pattern in those artificial
valleys in Precolonial times trying to shed some light into the origins of social complexity
and the role of the irrigation systems in this process. Another main objective is to
understand the main characteristics of Precolonial societies in the area, comparing them
with the classic definitions from Neoevolutionary cultural anthropology: band, tribe,
chiefdom and state that have been widely used by several scholars who worked on the
Peruvian case.
In order to reach those objectives, this investigation used modern and old maps and
aerial photos in order to make a map of the area before the modern expansion of the city
in the Twentieth Century that destroyed the irrigation systems and numerous
archaeological sites, locally known as huacas. Several pottery collections from this area
were analyzed in order to establish the chronology and cultural association of several
archaeological sites. The investigation also comprised the analysis of colonial documents
from the Sixteenth to the early Nineteenth centuries, some of them published and other
kept in archives and libraries in Lima, trying to establish the political and territorial
organization of the indigenous population in the late Precolonial period.
This investigation found few elements that support the idea of an original emergence
of state or the existence of urban settlements in the valley. The political organization
ii
seemed to be closer to the notion of simple and complex chiefdoms, with a hierarchy of
lords controlling some sections of the artificial valley, during the Ancon (800-400 BC),
Lima (300-800 AD) and Ychsma (1000-1476 AD) occupations, that were absorbed by
expansive polities in some parts of their history: Janabarriu (Chavin) associated with the
Ancon occupation, Topara (400 BC-300 AD), Wari (800-1000), and Inca (1476-1532).
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigation would have been impossible without the help of many persons
through the long way from its first formulation until the final review. First, I have to
thank Dr. Ruth Shady Solis, Dr. Hugo Ludeña and Dr. Jorge Silva, my teachers in San
Marcos University, who signed the recommendation letters for the University of Calgary
and read the first draft of the investigation proposal. I am very grateful to my supervisor
Dr. Scott Raymond at the University of Calgary for his recommendations when I was in
Lima doing the investigation and in Calgary during the processing of the data and the
final redaction of the thesis.
I have to acknowledge the directors of the institutions in Lima where I went to analyze
the pottery collections for this investigation. Dr. Christian Mesía and Dr. Carmen
Arellano Hoffmann directors of the National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology,
and History of Peru, allowed access to the collections of Makatampu and Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa. The staff of this museum helped a lot with this investigation, especially the
archeologists Elba Manrique, Maritza Pérez, and Víctor Hugo Farfán.
In the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of San Marcos University, the
directors Fernando Fujita Alarcón first and Pieter Van Dalen Luna later, allowed access
to the collections of Huaca Aramburu, Huaca Echenique (Huantille) and the Metropolitan
Deliberative Board. The staff of this museum was very helpful especially the
archeologists Juan Jose Yataco, Christian Altamirano and Cecilia Aguilar, who also made
a great work with the conservation of several vessels from Huaca Aramburu.
In the School of Archaeology at San Marcos University, its director archeologist
Daniel Morales gave access to the collections of Huaca Aramburu, Huaca Concha, and
Huaca 9. Archeologist Carmen Salas allowed me to analyze the pottery collection that she
iv
recovered during her excavations in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu. The students
Stephanie Rodriguez, Pilar Elizabeth, Kevin Ricci, Claudia Knutsen, and Susana Bejar
helped with the analysis of those collections.
At the Park of the Legends Zoo, the archeologist Lucénida Carrión gave access to the
Topara pottery collection from Huaca La Palma, and permitted the visit and taking
pictures of the several archeological buildings located inside the Park.
During the investigation, four persons assisted me during different stages of the work:
the archaeologists Claudia Molina, Patricia Quiñonez, and Claudina Zavala, helped with
the analysis and drawing of the pottery specimens, and the historian Gladys Vásquez
made a very good work helping with the location and transcription of colonial documents.
Some persons made very important contributions to the work: Lizardo Tavera sent me
the book about the estates of Maranga, La Legua and La Magdalena written by Flores-
Zúñiga (2012) and allowed me to use some of his photos of the destructions in Huaca
Concha in 1993 during the remodeling of the San Marcos University Stadium. Fernando
Astudillo sent me the book about Maranga and Jacinto Jijón y Caamaño published in
Quito by Lumbreras (2011). Mr. Gonzalo Aliaga allowed visiting his old Colonial-
Republican house located in Lima Downtown in order to examine the basements where a
platform made of mud bricks is located supporting the entire house. It has been estimated
that it is part of a precolonial pyramid that was used to build the house. But, as was
explained in Chapter 7, it is from the Early Colonial Period.
v
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………...iv
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………vi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………......xii
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………......….xvi
List of Plates……………………………………………………………………...….….xxv
List of charts……………………………………………………………………………xxix
List of maps…………………………………………………………………………...xxxiv
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclatures………………………………..…xxxv
CHAPTER 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………...1
CHAPTER 2: The study Area and Environmental Setting……………………..…...14
CHAPTER 3: Previous Archaeological and Ethnohistorical studies in the valleys of
La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga……………………………………………….18
CHAPTER 4: The Research……………………………..……………………………..49
4.1 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………49
4.2 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………….60
4.3 Hypotheses……………...……………………………………………………………61
4.4 Research Methodology……………………………………………………………….63
4.5 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………….66
CHAPTER 5: The Artificial Valleys of La Legua, La Magdalena and Maranga…..72
5.1 Mapping the Area of Investigation…………………………………………………...72
5.2 The Common Channel Valley………………………………………………………..76
5.3 The La Magdalena Channel Valley…………………………………………………..77

vi
5.4 The Maranga Channel Valley………………………………………………………...90
5.5 The La Legua Channel Valley………………………………………………………193
5.6 A General View of the Area of Investigation……………………………………….246
CHAPTER 6: Pottery Analysis……………………………………………………….253
6.1 Objectives and Method of Investigation……………………………………………253
6.2 Terminology………………………………………………………………………...255
6.3 The Ancon Pottery Style……………………………………………………………256
6.4 The Topara Pottery Style……………………………………………………………257
6.5 The Lima Pottery Style……………………………………………………………...258
6.6 The Nieveria Pottery Style………………………………………………………….259
6.7 The Wari pottery styles…………………………………………………….……….260
6.8 The Pativilca Pottery Style………………………………………………………….261
6.9 The Three-color Geometric Pottery Style…………………………………………..261
6.10 The Ychsma Pottery Style…………………………………………………..……..262
6.11 The Chancay Pottery Style………..……………………………………………….263
6.12 The Inca Pottery Style…………..…………………………………………………263
6.13 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….….264
CHAPTER 7: The Colonial Period Documental Information……………………...265
7.1 Objectives and Method of Investigation……………………………………………265
7.2 Ychsma……………………………………………………………………………...265
7.3 The Rimac River Valley…………………………………………………………….269
7.4 The Irrigation Channels……………………………………………………………..274
7.5 Lima………………………………………………………………………………....276
7.6 Maranga…………………………………………………………….....……….……302
vii
7.7 La Legua…………………………………………………………………………….314
7.8 Callao.…………………………………………………...………...………………...315
7.9 The Inca Conquest of the Rimac and Lurin River Valleys .............................……..322
7.10 Wrong Information………………………………………………………..……….326
7.11 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………......337
CHAPTER 8: Reconstruction of the Occupation Sequence and Settlement
Pattern….………………………………………………………………………………344
8.1 The Preceramic Period……………………………………………………………...344
8.2 The Ancon Occupation……………………………………………………………...344
8.3 The Topara Occupation……………………………………………………………..352
8.4 The Lima Occupation……………………………………………………………….355
8.5 The Wari Occupation……………………………………………………………….364
8.6 The Ychsma Occupation……………………………………………………………372
8.7 The Inca Occupation………………………………………………………………..374
8.8 The Area of Investigation Compared with Other Valleys in the Peruvian Coast…..494
CHAPTER 9: Conclusions……………………………………………………….…...419
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………..434
Appendix A: Pottery Typology……………………………………………………….496
A.1 Ancon Pottery Style………………………………………………………………...496
A.1.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….496
A.1.2 Morphological Types……………………………………………………………..497
A.1.3 Decorative Types…………………………………………………………………500
A.2 Topara Pottery Style………………………………………………………………..500
A.2.1 Ware Type………………………………………………………………………..500

viii
A.3 Lima Pottery Style………………………………………………………………….501
A.3.1 Ware Types………………………………………………………………………501
A.4 Nieveria Pottery Style………………………………………………………………514
A.4.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….514
A.5 Wari pottery styles………………………………………………………………….519
A.5.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….519
A.5.2 Morphological Types…………………………………………………………..…523
A.6 Pativilca Pottery Style……………………………………………………………...531
A.6.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….531
A.7 Three-color Geometric Pottery Style……………………………………………….531
A.7.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….531
A.8 Ychsma Pottery Style………………………………………………………………541
A.8.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….541

ix
A.9 Chancay Pottery Style……………………………………………………………...593
A.9.1 Ware Types………………………………………………………………………593
Appendix B: Pottery analysis and archeological Contexts………………………….675
B.1 LM-52 (Huaca Huantille)…………………………………………………………..675
B.2 M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa)……………………………………………………677
B.3 M-12 - M-16 (Mateo Salado)………………………………………………………689
B.4 M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos)…………………………………………………………...691
B.5 M-141 (Huaca La Palma)…………………………………………………………..693
B.6 LL-10 (Makatampu)………………………………………………………………..694
B.7 LL-59 (Huaca Concha)……………………………………………………………..706
B.8 LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu) Western Passage Platform 2……………………………716
B.9 LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu Southern Slope)…………………………………………726
B.10 LL-64 (Huaca 9)…………………………………………………………………..740
B.11 LL-75 (Huaca 21)…………………………………………………………………749
Appendix C: The Published Pottery………………………………………………….755
C.1 LM-52 (Huaca Huantille)…………………………………………………………..755
C.2 M-55 (Huaca La Luz)………………………………………………………………755
C.3 Huacas of the Pando Estate…………………………………………………………755
C.4 M-68 (Huaca 64-A)………………………………………………………………...756
C.5 M-77 (Huaca 18)……………………………………………………………………756
C.6 M-82 (Huaca 20)……………………………………………………………………756

x
C.7 M-95 (Huaca San Miguel or Huaca 37)……………………………………………757
C.8 M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos)…………………………………………………………...761
C.9 M-154 (Wall 55E)…………………………………………………………………..761
C.10 M-165 (Huatinamarca)……………………………………………………………761
C.11 M-166 (“Pacific Fair” Huaca)…………………………………………………….762
C.12 LL-12 to LL-15 (Makatampu)…………………………………………………….763
C.13 LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu)…………………………………………………………764
C.14 LL-75 (Huaca Middendorf)……………………………………………………….767
C.15 Callao……………………………………………………………………………...776
Appendix D: Comparative Pottery Analysis………………………………………....777
D.1 Ancon Pottery Style………………………………………………………………...777
D.2 Topara Pottery Style………………………………………………………………..785
D.3 Lima Pottery Style………………………………………………………………….789
D.4 Nieveria Pottery Style………………………………………………………………799
D.5 Wari pottery styles………………………………………………………………….800
D.6 Pativilca Pottery Style……………………………………………………………...804
D.7 Three-color Geometric Pottery Style………………………………………………804
D.8 Ychsma Pottery Style………………………………………………………………807
D.9 Chancay Pottery Style……………………………………………………………...821
xi
List of tables
4-1 Chronological variables, categories and indicators on the basis of pottery styles
and phases………………………………………………………………...………68
4-2 Variables, categories and indicators for chronology on the basis of architectural
materials……………………………………………………..……………………69
4-3 Main pottery sequences in the Rimac River Valley………………………….…..70
5-1 La Magdalena Channel Valley Archeological Sites………………………….…..80
5-2 The Maranga Channel Valley Archaeological Sites……………………..……….93
5-3 The La Legua Channel Valley Archaeological Sites…………………..…….….199
5-4 Places irrigated by the La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels (Cerdán y
Pontero 1793:83-85)…………………………………………………….………248
5-5. Places irrigated by the La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels based on
Miguel de Oyague y Sarmiento 1795 (Coloma 1989:65-66)……………….…..248
5-6. Places of the valleys of La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels
(Jochamowitz 1919)…………………………………………………….………249
5-7. Comparative table between valleys………………………………………….….249
5-8. Distribution of sites per current situation in the area of study………………..…251
5-9. Distribution of sites per type in the area of investigation………………….……252
7-1. Indigenous names of towns, lands, and of huacas mentioned in colonial documents
about the polities of Lima, Maranga, and Callao…………………………….…341
8-1. Published Radiocarbon dates for Pottery Styles in the Central Peruvian
Coast.....................................................................................................................387
B-1. Pottery collections analyzed in the thesis……………………………………....675
B-2. Huaca Huantille collection in the National Museum of Archaeology………..…676

xii
B-3. Lanning’s Huaca Huantille Collection in the Museum of Archaeology of San
Marcos University………………………………………………………………676
B-4 Metropolitan Deliberative Board’s collection from Huaca Huantille…………..676
B-5 Distribution of Ancon Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa…………..678
B-6. Distribution of Lima style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa…………….680
B-7. Distribution of Nieveria Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa………...682
B-8. Distribution of Ychsma Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa………...683
B-9. Distribution of pottery styles specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa………....688
B-10. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in Mateo Salado…………….………..690
B-11. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in Huaca Tres Palos………………….692
B-12. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in Huaca La Palma……………….…..694
B-13. Distribution of pottery specimens in Makatampu………………….…………...695
B-14. Distribution of Lima Pottery Style specimens in the Makatampu collection…...697
B-15. Wari pottery distribution in the Makatampu collection…………………..……..697
B-16. Pativilca style distribution in the Makatampu collection……………………….697
B-17. Three-color Geometric Style in the Makatampu Collection……..…..................698
B-18. Ychsma style distribution in the Makatampu Collection……………………….700
B-19. Chancay style distribution in the Makatampu Collection……………………....705
B-20. Distribution of pottery specimens in Huaca Concha…………………………....708
B-21. Distribution of Lima style specimens in Huaca Concha………………………..709
B-22. Lima Pottery Style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection...…………….711
B-23. Nieveria style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection…………………....712
B-24. Ychsma style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection…………………….714
xiii
B-25. Distribution of pottery style specimens in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu………………………………………………………………...719
B-26. Distribution of Lima style specimens in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu………………………………………………………………...721
B-27. Distribution of Wari pottery style specimens in the Western Passage of Platform 2
in Huaca Aramburu……………………………………………………………..722
B-28. Distribution of pottery styles specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca
Aramburu………………………………………………………………………727
B-29. Distribution of Lima specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu….730
B-30. Distribution of Nieveria style specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca
Aramburu………………………………………………………………………..732
B-31. Distribution of Nieveria style specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca
Aramburu………………………………………………………………………..733
B-32 Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca
Aramburu………………………………………………………………………..733
B-33. Distribution of pottery specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu by
layers Unit S303-317/W80-91…………………………………………………..735
B-34. Distribution of pottery specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca Aramburu by
layers Unit S303-317/W83-97…………………………………………………..736
layers Unit S314-317/W97-99…………………………………………………..738
layers - Unit S317-319/W83-97………………………………………………...739
xiv
layers – Trench………………………………………………………………….739
B-38. Distribution of pottery style specimens in Huaca 9……………………………..742
B-39. Distribution of Lima style specimens in Huaca 9………………………………743
B-40. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Sherds with incomplete information…...745
B-41. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 1………………………………….745
B-42. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 2…………………………………..745
B-44. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 4…..……………………………....746
B-45. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 6………………………………..…746
B-46. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 7…………………………………....746
B-48. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 10………………………………....747
B-52. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 15…………………………………748
B-56. Distribution of specimens in the Unit 22 of Huaca 9…………………………...749
B-57. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 21……………………………………........750
B-58. Distribution of Lima specimens in Huaca 21…………………………………...751
B-59. Distribution of Ychsma specimens in Huaca 21………………………………..753

xv
List of Figures
5-1 Aerial picture of the huacas Orbea and Huantille in 1944…………….................87
5-2 Cut side of Huaca Huantille (LM-52) in 2007………………………………...…88
5-3 Satellite image of Huaca Huantille (LM-52) in 2012 (Google Earth)…………....88
5-4 Aerial picture of part of La Magdalena Channel Valley in 1944………… ……..88
5-5 Aerial photo of part of the Valley of Maranga in 1944 (S.A.N.)……………….106
5-6 Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7) in 2007……………………………………….107
5-7 Spherical mud-bricks in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7) in 2010……………..107
5-8 Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7) in 2010……………………………………….108
5-9 Aerial picture of Mateo Salado in 1944 (SAN)………………………...……….109
5-10 Satellite image of Mateo Salado in 2012 (Google Earth)………………..……...110
5-11 M-12 picture showing rammed earth walls Class 1………………………..…...111
5-12 M-13. A Republican house is located at the top………………………………...112
5-13 M-14 in Mateo Salado in 2007………………………………………………….113
5-14 M-14. Detail of the architecture. Enclosure with staircase………………..…….114
5-15 South side of M-15 after the restoration work…………………………..………115
5-16. Passage delimited by M-19 and the west side of M-15………………...……….116
5-17 Pyramid M-16 and wall M-19…………………………………………………..117
5-18. Wall M-20 used as part of a Republican house……………………..…………..118
5-19. Partial view of the Valley of Maranga in 1944 (S.A.N.)………………..………120
5-20. M-55 (Huaca La Luz I) in 2007………………….…………………….………..121
5-21. M-55. Passage made with rammed earth walls Class 1…………………………121
5-22. M-56 (Huaca La Luz) in 2007………..………………………………………....121

xvi
5-23. M-56 in 2007. Wall with rectangular niche……………………………………..122
5-24. Partial view of the Maranga Valley Channel in 1944…………………………..124
5-25. M-63 (Huaca Corpus I) in 2007………………………………………………...124
5-26. M-63 (Huaca Corpus I) in 2007………………………………….…...………...125
5-27. M-64 (Huaca Corpus II) in 2007………..…………………………….………...125
5-28. Partial view of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)……….………...126
3-29. M-66 (Huaca Culebra) in 2007……………………………………………….....127
3-30. M-66 (Huaca Culebra) in 2007. Ornamental staircase…………….…………....127
5-31. M-69 (Huaca 64A) in 2007……………………………………………………..129
5-32. Partial view of the Valley of Maranga in 1944…………………………………131
5-33. M-73. Catholic Inca Road in 2007……………………………………………...131
5-34. M-78 (Huaca 25) in 2007……………………………………………………….134
5-35. M-78 (Huaca 25) in 2007…………………………………………………….…134
5-36. Partial view of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)…………………135
5-37. M-77 (Huaca 18) in 2007…………………………………………………….…135
5-38. M-80 (Huaca Potosí Alto) in 2007……………………………………………...136
5-39. M-80 (Huaca Potosí Alto). Two construction techniques using small mud bricks in
technics B, and technic D……………………………………………………….136
5-40. M-80 (Huaca Potosí Alto). Enclosure made with small Lima mud-bricks in
technique C……………………………………………………………………...137
5-41. M-83 (Huaca 20A) in 2012……………………………………………………..140
5-42. M-84 (Huaca 31) in 2012…………………………………………………….…141
5-43. Pre-Colonial irrigation channel lined with boulders, eastward of M-84 in
2013……………………………………………………………………………..141
xvii
5-44. Irrigation channel lined with boulders located eastward of M-84……………....142
5-45. Cut exposed during the construction of the basement of the new Museum eastward
of M-84………………………………………………………………………….142
5-46. Partial view of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)………………....145
5-47. M-86 (Huaca 30) in 2012……………………………………………………….145
5-48. M-87 (Huaca 32) in 2007……………………………………………………….146
5-49. M-89 (Huaca 34) in 2007……………………………………………………….146
5-50. Partial view Picture of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)………...147
5-51. Satellite image of M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca) in 2012 (Google Earth)………...148
5-52. South side of M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca)……………….……………………...149
5-53. M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca). Enclosure with rectangular niches at the top of the
Section A………………………………………………………………………..149
5-54. M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca). Double staircase in the lower part…………..….…150
5-55. M-91. S-E corner of M-91 showing architectonic fills with Lima small mud-
bricks…………………………………………………………………………....150
5-56. Satellite image of M-95 in 2012 (Google Earth)………………………………..153
5-57. South corner of M-95 (Huaca San Miguel) in 2012…………………………….153
5-58. M-96 (Huaca La Cruz) from M-98 in 2012……………………………………..154
5-59. M-97 in 2013…………………………………………………………………....154
5-60. Satellite image of M-98 (“Huaca Tres Palos”) with the four superimposed
platforms (Google Earth)………………………………………………………..159
5-61. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Main access ramp to Platform B…………................160
5-62. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Platform A with the ramp and the quadrangular
cells……………………………………………………………………………...160
xviii
5-63. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Passage and staircase in Platform C…………….….161
5-64. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Platform D…………………………………………..161
5-65. M-113 in 2012……………………………………………………………….….162
5-66. M-122 (Huaca 61) in 2012……………………………………………………...164
5-67. Double-jam access in M-123…………………………………………………....165
5-68. M-125. Class 2 rammed earth wall…………………………………………..….166
5-69. The “Great Walled Enclosure” in the Maranga group in 1944 (S.A.N.)………..168
5-70. M-127 in 2012 with rammed earth walls Class 2…………………………….…168
5-71. M-130 (Huaca 60) en 2012……………………………………………………...169
5-72. M-132 (Huaca 58) in 2012……………………………………………………...170
5-73. M-133 in 2004, before the construction of the lagoon………………………….171
5-74. Preserved section of M-134 inside the Park of the Legends Zoo…………….…172
5-75. M-136 in 2012……………………………………………………………….….173
5-76. M-137 (Huaca 46) covered by a modern staircase and M-138 (Wall 46A) in
2007………………………………………………………………………….….174
5-77. M-138 (Wall 46 A) in 2012 after the conservation work………………….…....174
5-78. M-140 in 2012…………………………………………………………………..176
5-79. Satellite image of M-141 (Huaca La Palma) in 2012 (Google earth)…………..178
5-80. M-141 (Huaca La Palma). Friezes of stepped crocess………………………….178
5-81. M-141 (“Huaca La Palma”). Frontal view of the pyramid with ramp……….…179
5-82. Preserved fragment of the walled road M-143………………………………….180
5-83. M-153 (Southern Wall) in 2007………………………………………………...183
5-84. M-154 (Western Wall) in 2012………………………………………………....184
5-85. M-155 (Northern Wall) in 2012………………………………………………...184

xix
5-86. Epimural road on the top of M-156 (Western Wall) in 2012…………………...185
5-87. M-164 (“Huaca Casa Rosada”) in 2007………………………………………...187
5-88. M-164 (Huaca Casa Rosada) in 2007…………………………………………...187
5-89 Partial view of the valley of Maranga in 1944………………………………….190
5-90. Satellite image of M-165 in 2012 after de excavation and conservation works in
the site (Google Earth)…………………………………………………………..190
5-91. Makatampu Group in 1944 (S.A.N.)…………………………………………....204
5-92. Makatampu picture (LL-11) circa 1917-1919 (MAAUNMSM)………………..209
5-93. Makatampu picture (LL-11) circa 1917-1919 (MAAUNMSM………………...209
5-94. Walled enclosure at Makatampu (LL-15) circa 1917-1919 (MAAUNMSM)….210
5-95. Funerary box made from Makatampu in 1945 (MNAAHP)…………………….210
5-96. Cubic small mud brick walls (technique D) in Makatampu in 1945
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...211
5-97. Partial view of La Legua Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)………………….....212
5-98. LL-41 (Huaca Palomino) in 2007……………………………………………….213
5-99. LL-41 (Huaca Palomino) in 2007. Staircase…...……………………………….214
5-100. North Section of Maranga Archaeological Group in La Legua Channel Valley in
1944 (S.A.N.)…………………………..……………………………………….215
5-101.Satellite image of the same area in 2012 with the site that still existed in circles
(Google Earth)……………………………………..………...………………….216
5-102. LL-57 (Huaca 11) in 2005……………………………………………………..216
5-103. LL-57. (Huaca 11). Lima small mud brick wall in technique C in 2005……...217
5-104. LL-57 (Huaca 11). Platform with holes for big vessels in 2005………….…...217
5-105. Preserved section of the walled road LL-61 inside San Marcos University…...221
xx
5-106. LL- 59 Huaca Concha (LL-59) in 1944 during the construction of the Stadium
with the platforms identified by Jijón (1949) (S.A.N.).………………………...222
5-107. LL- 59 (Huaca Concha) in 2012 (Google Earth)……………………………....222
5-108. LL- 59 (Huaca Concha) in 2012…………………………………………....….223
5-109. LL-59 (Huaca Concha). North Hole during the reconstruction work of the
Stadium in 2003 (Photo: Lizardo Tavera).……………………………………...223
5-110. LL-59 (Huaca Concha). South Hole during the reconstruction work of the Stadium
2003 (Photo: Lizardo Tavera).……………………………………………….224
5-111. LL-59 (Huaca Concha). Southern Hole during the remodeling of the Stadium in
2003 (Photo: Lizardo Tavera)..………………………………………………….224
5-112. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu) in 1944 (S.A.N.)..…………………………………...230
5-113. LL- 62 (Huaca Aramburu) in 2007……………………………………………...230
5-114. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu). North side of Platform 2 in 2007…………………...231
5-115. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu). Staircase towards the summit of Platform 2………..231
5-116. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu). Platform 2 summit……………………………….…232
5-117. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu). Platform 3 access…………………………………...232
5-118. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu). Southern Slope………………………………….….233
5-119. LL-64 (Huaca 9)………………………………………………………………....235
5-120. LL-64 (Huaca 9)…………………………………………………………………236
5-121. LL-67 (Huaca 14)………………………………………………………………..237
5-122. Partial view of La Legua Channel Valley in 1994 (S.A.N.)………………….…237
5-123. LL-71 (Huaca 23) in 2007………………………………...………………….…238
5-124. LL-72 (Huaca 22) in 2007………………………………………………………239
5-125. LL-72 (Huaca 22) in 2007………………………………………………………239

xxi
5-126. LL-75 (Huaca Middendorf or Huaca 21) in 1944……………………………….244
5-127. LL-75 (Huaca Middendorf or Huaca 21) in 2012……………………………….245
5-128. LL-75 (Huaca Middendorf or Huaca 21) in 2012. Rammed earth walls class 2 in
the western slope of the pyramid……………………………………………………….245
8-1. Map of the area of investigation from the Tello Archive (circa 1935)
(MNAAHP)……………………………………………………….…………….381
A-1. Neck-less pot rims Ancon ware 4 and Ancon ware 1 from Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa (MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………….498
A.2 Neck-less pot rims ware Ancon 2 with red slip from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
(MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………………..498
A-3. Neck-less rim sherd ware Ancon 3 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
(MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………………..499
A-4. Body sherd with incised decoration ware Ancon 5. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
(MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………………..499
A-5. Topara bottle Type 1 from Huaca La Palma (PATPAL)………………………..502
A-6. Topara bottle Type 2 from Huaca La Palma (PATPAL)………………………..502
A-7. Ware Lima 1. Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM)………….504
A-10. Ware Lima 4. Southern Slope Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM)……………..505
A-12. Middle Lima Sherd of an open bowl with decoration Type 9c from Huaca
Middendorf (MAA-UNMSM)…………………………………………………..513
xxii
A-13. Middle Lima Trumpet with the representation of a shark from Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa (MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………….513
A-14. Middle Lima human representation from the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu
(MAA-UNMSM)………………………………………………………………..514
A-15. Ware Nievería 1. Western Passage of Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM)……..516
A-16. Ware Nieveria 2. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (MNAAHP)………………………516
A-17. Ware Nieveria 3. Western Passage. Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...517
A-18. Ware Nieveria 4. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (MAAHP)………………………..517
A-19. Nieveria Derivative closed bowl sherd from the western passage of Huaca
Aramburu (MAA-UNMSM)…………………………………………………....519
A-20. Ware Wari 1. Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)...................................................................................................521
A-21. Ware Wari 2 from the Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...522
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...522
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...522
A-24. Horizontal strap in ware Wari 5. Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...523
A-25. Wari Jar Type 1 with Chakipampa Serpent design from Makatampu
(MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………………..529
xxiii
A-26. Wari sherd with design Type 17 from the western passage of Huaca Aramburu
(MAA-UNMSM)………………………………………………………………..529
A-27. Wari Pot Type 1 from the Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...530
A-28. Wari jar sherd with the decorative Type 22 from the Western Passage of Huaca
Aramburu (MAAUNMSM)……………………………………………………..530
A-29. Pativilca style jar MT 3138 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)…………………….537
A-30. Other side of the same vessel MT 3138 with decoration Type (MNAAHP)......537
A-31. Beaker Type 3 ware Geometric Tricolor 2 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)…….537
A-32. Geometric Tricolor Stirrup-spout bottle ware 1 from Makatampu
(MNAAHP)....................................................................................................537
A-33. Three-color Geometric Jug Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)…………….538
A-34. Three-color Geometric Jar Type 12 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………538
A-35. Three-color Geometric Beaker Type 4 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………...539
A-36. Three-color Geometric Jar Type 3 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………..539
A-37. Early Ychsma Pot Type 88 ware 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)…………….543
A-38. Pot Ychsma Type 105. Ychsma Ware 2 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……….543
A-39. Ychsma Jar Type 13 ware 3 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………………544
A-40. Pot Ychsma Type 29 Ychsma ware 4 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………….544
A-41. Ychsma Jar Type 22. Ychsma ware 5 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)…………545
A-42. Jug Type 7 Ychsma ware 6 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………..……..545
A-43. Jar Type 8 Ychsma ware 7 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………………..……546
A-44. Ychsma ware 9 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………………………………...546
A-45. Early Ychsma Bottle Type 2 (MNAAHP)…………………………………..….584

xxiv
A-46. Early Ychsma Jar Pot Type 112 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………….585
A-47. Middle Ychsma Jar Type 20 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)…………………..585
A-48. Middle/Late Ychsma pot Type 20 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)………….…586
A-49. Middle Ychsma pot Type 56 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)……………….…586
A-50. Figure Middle/Late Ychsma Jar Type 37 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)……..587
A-51. Figurine Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………………………………...587
A-52. Figurine Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………………………………...588
A-53. Late Ychsma bottle Jug Type 19 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)………………588
A-54. Late Ychsma Jar Type 19 with decoration Type 5 from Makatampu
(MNAAHP)……………………………………………………………………..589
A-55. Figure Late Ychsma Jug Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………….589
A-58. Late Ychsma Jug Type 10 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………………..591
A-59. Ychsma sherd with the representation of an octopus tentacle from Huaca Concha
(MAAUNMSM)………………………………………………………………...591
A-60. Chancay Jar Type 2 ware Chancay 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)…………..591
A-61. Jar Type 2 ware Chancay 2 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)……………………593
A-62. Chancay Jar Type 5 from Makatampu with decorative 11 (MNAAHP)………..595
B-1. Huaca Aramburu with the excavated areas (Google Earth)…………………….718
xxv
List of Plates
A-1. Ancon pottery style typology. Rim sherds………………………………………...596
A-2. Ancon pottery style typology. Decorated sherds………………………………….597
A-3. Topara and Lima pottery styles typology. Vessel types…………………………..598
A-4. Lima pottery style typology. Vessels……………………………………………...599
A-5. Plate A-5. Lima pottery style typology. Rim sherds………………………………600
A-6. Lima pottery style typology. Rim sherd types…………………………………….601
A-7. Lima pottery style typology. Rim sherds………………………………………….602
A-8. Lima pottery style typology. Decorated sherds……………………………………603
A-9. Lima pottery style typology. Decorated sherds……………………………………604
A-10. Lima pottery style typology. Decorated sherds…………………………………..605
A-13. Lima pottery style typology. Decorated sherds, bottom, spoon and
panpipes…………………………………………………………………………………608
A-14. Nieveria pottery style typology. Decorated sherds………………………………609
A-17. Wari pottery style typology. Vessels…………………………………………….612
A-18. Wari pottery style typology. Vessels…………………………………………….613
A-19. Wari pottery style typology. Decorated sherds…………………………………..614

xxvi
A-23. Wari pottery style typology. Decorated sherds………………………………..…618
A-25. Wari pottery style typology. Rim sherds…………………………………………620
A-29. Wari and Pativilca pottery styles typology………………………………………624
A-30. Three-color Geometric pottery style typology. Vessels………………………….625
A-31. Three-color Geometric pottery style typology. Vessels………………………….626
A-32. Three-color Geometric pottery style typology. Vessels…………………………627
A-33. Three-color Geometric pottery style typology. Vessels. ………………………...628
A-34. Ychsma pottery style typology. Vessels…………………………………………629
A-41. Ychsma pottery style typology. Decorated sherds……………………………….636
A-45. Ychsma pottery style typology. Vessels………………………………………....640

xxvii
A-66. Ychsma pottery style typology. Vessel………………………………………..…661

xxviii
A-71. Ychsma pottery style typology. Rim sherds……………………………………..666
A-79. Chancay pottery style typology. Vessels………………………………………...674
xxix
List of Charts
5-1. Relative frequency of sites per type in the La Magdalena Channel
Valley..........................................................................................................83
5-2. Relative frequency of sites per current situation in the La Magdalena
Channel Valley…………………………………………………………...83
5-3. Relative frequency of sites per type in the Maranga Channel
Valley……………....................................................................................104
5-4. Relative frequency of sites per current situation in the Maranga Channel
Valley……………………………………………………………….…...104
5-5. Relative frequency of archaeological sites per type in La Legua Channel
Valley……………………………………………………………...…….202
5-6. Relative frequency of archaeological sites per current situation in the La
Legua Channel Valley…………………………………………………..202
5-7. Relative frequency of area per valley………………………………...…250
5-8. Relative frequency per artificial valley………………………………….250
5-9. Relative frequency of sites per current situation in the area of
investigation……………………………………………………………..251
5-10. Relative frequency of sites per type in the area of study………...……...252
7-1. Hierarchy in Lima, Maranga and Callao at the end of the Late Horizon
Period…………………………………………………………………....342
8-1. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates of the Peruvian Central Coast…………...390

xxx
B-1. Relative frequency of Ancon types in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa………679
B-2. Relative frequency of Ancon wares in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa……...679
B-3. Relative frequency of Lima Wares in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa……….681
B-4. Relative frequency Lima ceramic types in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.…681
B-5. Relative frequency of Lima ceramic shape types distribution in Huaca
Huerto anta Rosa base on rim sherds……………………………….…...682
B-6. Relative frequency of Ychsma specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa by
wares. “Others” include Ychsma 1, Ychsma 6, Ychsma 7 and Ychsma
9…………………………………………………………………….…...687
B-7. Relative frequency of pottery styles specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa………………………………………………………………….….689
B-8. Relative frequency of Ychsma style specimens in Mateo Salado………691
B-9. Relative frequency of pottery styles in the Huaca Tres Palos…………..693
B-10. Relative frequency of pottery styles distribution at Makatampu. “Others”
includes Lima, Wari and Pativilca……………………………………....696
B-11. Relative frequency of pottery types distribution at Makatampu. “Others”
includes dishes, bowls, beakers, bottles, figurines and rattles…………..696
B-12. Relative frequency of Three-color Geometric wares in the Makatampu
collection…………………………………………………………….…..699
B-13. Relative frequency of Three-color Geometric types in the Makatampu
collection………………………………………………………………...699
xxxi
B-14. Relative frequency of Ychsma pottery types in the Makatampu collection.
“Other” includes bottles, figurines, rattles, closed and open bowls, and the
unidentified specimen…………………………………………………...704
B-15. Relative frequency of Ychsma wares in the collection of Makatampu.
“Others” includes Ychsma 5, Ychsma 6, Ychsma 7 and Ychsma 8…….704
B-16. Relative frequency of pottery styles at Makatampu. “Others” includes
Lima, Wari and Pativilca………………………………………………..706
B-17. Relative frequency of pottery styles of analyzed specimens from Huaca
Concha…………………………………………………………………..708
B-18. Relative frequency of diagnostic specimens in the Huaca Concha by
types……………………………………………………………………..709
B-19. Relative frequency of Lima diagnostic specimens in Huaca Concha by
wares…………………………………………………………………….710
B-20. Relative frequency of Lima diagnostic specimens in Huaca Concha by
wares…………………………………………………………………….710
B-21. Relative frequency of Lima wares in the Huaca Concha collection…….712
B-22. Relative frequency of Nieveria wares in the Huaca Concha collection...713
B-23. Relative frequency of Ychsma wares in the Huaca Concha collection…715
B-24. Relative frequency of Ychsma Style types in the Huaca Concha
Collection………………………………………………………………..716
B-24. Relative frequency of pottery styles in the Western Passage at Platform 2
in Huaca Aramburu……………………………………………………...719
B-25. Relative frequency of pottery types in the Western Passage at Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu………………………………………………………...720
xxxii
B-26. Relative frequency of Lima wares in the Western Passage at Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu………………………………………………………...720
B-27. Relative frequency of Wari wares in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu collection……………………………………………..725
B-28. Relative frequency of Wari pottery types in the Western Passage of
Platform 2 in Huaca Aramburu collection………………………………725
B-29. Relative frequencies pottery styles in the collection of Southern Slope of
Huaca Aramburu……...……………..…………………………………..729
B-30. Relative frequency of pottery types in the collection of the Southern Slope
of Huaca Aramburu……………………………………………………..729
B-31. Relative frequency of Lima ware specimens in the Southern Slope of
Huaca Aramburu………………………………………………………...731
B-32. Relative frequency of Lima specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca
Aramburu by type……………………………………………………….731
B-33. Relative frequency of Nieveria wares in the southern slope of Huaca
Aramburu………………………………………………………………..732
B-34. Relative frequency of Ychsma specimens by wares in the Southern slope
B-35. Relative frequency of Ychsma specimens by types in the Southern slope
B-36. Relative frequency of pottery specimens in the Southern Slope in
Huaca Aramburu by layers Unit S303-317/W80-91…………………....742
B-37. Relative frequency of pottery collection from Sector 9 by types……….743
B-38. Relative frequency of Lima specimens in Huaca 9 per wares…………..744

xxxiii
B-39. Relative frequency of Lima specimens per type………………………...744
B-40. Relative frequency of pottery styles in Huaca 21…………………….…750
B-41. Relative frequency of pottery in Huaca 21 by types………………….....751
B-42. Relative frequency of Lima pottery in Huaca 21 by wares……………..752
B-43. Relative frequency of Lima pottery in Huaca 21 by types……………...752
B-44. Relative frequency of Ychsma pottery in Huaca 21 by wares…………..753
B-45. Relative frequency of Ychsma pottery in Huaca 21 by types…………..754
xxxiv
List of Maps
1-1. Peru and the area of investigation in South America………………………….…11
1-2. Sites mentioned in the text……………………………………………………….12
1-3. Peruvian central coast and archaeological sites mentioned in the text…………...13
7- 1. Location of the lands of the Callao, Maranga, Lima and Huatca polities at the
beginning of the Colonial Period………………………………………………..343
8-1. Identified Ancon sites in the area of investigation...……….……………….…..414
8-1. Identified Topara sites in the area of investigation…………………….………..415
5-12. Identified Lima sites in the area of investigation…………………….….….…..416
5-13. Identified Wari sites in the area of investigation…………………….……...…..417
5-14. Identified Ychsma and Inca sites in the area of investigation…………………..418
5-1. Area of investigation: irrigation channels and archaeological sites…………Pocket
5-2. Area of investigation: detail of the NW side………………………………..Pocket
5-3. Area of investigation: detail of the SW side…………………………………Pocket
5-4. Area of investigation: detail of the NE side………………………………….Pocket
5-5. Area of investigation: detail of the SE side………………………………….Pocket
5-6. Area of investigation: detail of the E side…………………………………..Pocket
xxxv
List of Abbreviations, symbols and nomenclatures
Geography:
UTM: Universal Transvers Mercator.
m: meter
Km: kilometer
Km²: Square kilometer.
m.a.s.l.: Meters above sea level.
NE: North-East
SE: South-East
Institutions:
AGN: Archivo General de la Nación.
RA: Archivo Instituto Riva-Agüero.
AAL: Archivo Arzobispal de Lima.
EAPUNMSM Escuela Acedémico-Profesional de Arqueología Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos.
MNAAHP: Museo Nacional de Arqueología Antropología e Historia del Perú
MAAUNMSM: Museo de Arqueología y Antropología Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos.
IGN: Instituto Geográfico Nacional.
PATPAL Patronato del Parque de las Leyendas.
SAN: Servicio Aerofotográfico Nacional.
xxxvi
Chronology:
IP: Initial Period
EHP: Early Horizon Period
EIP: Early Intermediate Period
MHP: Middle Horizon Period
LIP: Late Intermediate Period
LHP: Late Horizon Period.
Cal BC: Calibrated Before Christ
Cal AD: Calibrated Anno Domini.
Places:
LM: La Magdalena
M: Maranga.
LL: La Legua.
xxxvii
Legend for Maps 5-1 - 5-6:
Common Valley
La Magdalena Valley
Maranga Valley
La Legua Valley
Contour level each 5 m
Archaeogical site visible in the 1944 aerial picture.
Archaeogical site not visible in the 1944 aerial picture.
Artificial Hill
Reservoir
Road
Wall
Mother channel
Main channel
Secondary channel
Tertiary channel
xxxviii
Pottery color chart:
White Broken
Black
Red
Orange
Dark Brown
Light Brown
Grey
Natural background
xxxix
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The origins of social complexity in Pre-colonial Peru, and the emergence of states, cities and
civilization have been matters of great interest; some scholars have proposed that “state” and
“civilization” go back in Peru to the Late Preceramic Period or the Final Archaic Epoch, 5000
years ago (Shady 2006). Other scholars argued about a later emergence of the state in different
periods (Lumbreras 1981, Stanish 2001, Hass and Creamer 2006; Pozorski and Pozorski 1986;
Isbell and Schreiber 1977), while others said that the classic definitions of state or chiefdom
proposed by Social Neoevolutionism are actually inapplicable in the Peruvian case (Silverman
2002; Quilter and Koons 2012).
Karl Wittfogel (1956, 1959) postulated the “Hydraulic Hypothesis” arguing that the
construction, organization and maintenance of irrigation systems in arid zones for agriculture
were through a centralized authority, where elites who controlled the irrigation systems gained
power through time until a state-level society was generated. He cited Mesopotamia, Egypt, India
and Pakistan, China and the Incas as examples of those societies that he labelled as “Hydraulic
Society”. Other authors like Steward (1956, 1970), Steward and Faron (1959), Kosok (1965), and
Billman (1999, 2002), took his ideas and applied them to the Peruvian coast. Another model,
partially based on Witffogel’s assertions, is the “warfare theory” that argued that the emergence of
social complexity was the result of increasing internal conflict or warfare in a circumscribed area,
like a valley in an arid environment like the Peruvian coast. Population increase put stress on the
available lands that even with the developed of irrigation systems and the growing of
domesticated crops there was not enough land for every community. This situation led to the
1
emergence of conflict and warfare between the chiefdoms until one of them defeated the others,
centralizing land control and power, which finally led to the apparition of the state (Carneiro
1970).
The Peruvian coast (maps 1-1 and 1-2) is a dessert where the only areas for permanent
habitation and agriculture are the valleys carved by rivers that emerge from the glaciers and
lagoons in the Andean highlands and run down the western slopes of the Andes to the Pacific
Ocean. Since very ancient times, societies located in those valleys expanded the agriculture lands
by the construction of complex irrigation systems composed of main channels that reached several
kilometers in extension, along with secondary, tertiary and quaternary channels and reservoirs
used in times of drought during the winter. There is a concentration of archaeological sites of
different types that use mud bricks or rammed earth walls, and in some cases stone, to form huge
pyramids, isolated or concentrated in some areas as complex groups, along with mounds of
different dimensions. These sites are commonly known as huacas a Quechua word for a sacred
being or a sacred place. There are also walled roads, walled enclosures, cemeteries and rural
settlements without monumental architecture.
One important aspect for understanding the relationship between the development of the
irrigation systems and the emergence of social complexity is to determine how old irrigation
systems in Peru are. Archaeological excavations made on the western slopes of the northern
central Andes revealed the existence of small channels for agriculture in the Nanchoc site in the
middle Zaña River Valley in northern Peru, radiocarbon dated around 3,400 Cal BC and possibly
4,700 Cal BC. Those channels are associated with farming fields on low terraces and domestic
structures (Dillehay et al. 2005:17241). This discovery denies some ideas about the origins of the
irrigation systems. For example, it was argued that the first irrigation channels were built during
2
the Initial Period between 1800 and 900 B.C (Hayashida 2006:246, Pozorski 1987) or that early
agriculture in the western flanks of the central Andes and shoreline were developed close to
natural water sources (Willey 1953; Billman 2002). Nevertheless, the discoveries made in
Nanchoc could be very early and simple types of channels, and it is possible that the irrigation
systems on a greater scale were developed during the Initial Period or later.
Interested in the debate about the origins of social complexity and its relationship with the
emergence of irrigation systems, I proposed an archaeological analysis of the southwest section of
the lower Rimac River where three artificial valleys, generated by three main irrigation channels
named La Magdalena, Maranga, and La Legua, originated from a single mother channel from the
Rimac River (Mapa 1-3).
The objectives of this work were to establish the sequence of occupation and settlement pattern
along those artificial valleys in Pre-colonial times and, based on the results, try to shed some light
into the origins of social complexity in the central Andes and at the same time evaluate the
theories based on irrigation systems or warfare. But also, I tried to understand the main
characteristics of Pre-colonial societies in the area, comparing them with the classic definitions
from Neoevolutionary cultural anthropology: band, tribe, chiefdom and state that have been
widely used by several scholars who worked on the Peruvian case. Finally, I also tried to evaluate
how to investigate archaeologically an area where the great majority of archaeological sites has
been destroyed, especially during the twentieth century with modern urban expansion, and
without, in the majority of cases, any archaeological rescue work.
A very functional definition of “settlement pattern” was given by Gordon Willey as part of the
famous Viru project on the Peruvian North Coast in the 1940’s:
3
“The term “settlement patterns” is defined here as the way in which man disposed
himself over the landscape on which he lived. It refers to dwellings, to their
arrangement, and to the nature and disposition of other buildings pertaining to
community life. These settlements reflect the natural environment, the level of
technology on which the builders operated, and various institutions of social
interaction and control which the culture maintained. Because settlement patterns are,
to a large extent, directly shaped by widely held cultural needs, they offer a strategic
starting point for the functional interpretation of archaeological cultures” (Willey
1953:1).
In the case of this investigation, the settlement pattern study is not only an objective, but also a
way to understand the occupation sequence and the political organization of the societies that
inhabited the Rimac River Valley in Pre-colonial times. Previous research carried out there
offered analyses of the settlement pattern and occupation sequence, but due to the absence of
major excavation and analysis of the recovered archaeological artifacts, they were very
speculative (Villar 1935; Stumer 1954; MacNeish et al. 1975). Some other authors tried to explain
the cultural and social changes on the Peruvian Central Coast as a consequence of climate
changes, with epochs of heavy rains alternating with epochs with droughts (Shimada et al. 1991).
But when the sequence of occupation was better understood, the supposed changes actually did
not coincide with those alleged climate changes (Narváez 2006b). In this investigation the climate
factor is not considered, because more interdisciplinary investigation is necessary in order to have
a much better sequence of climate changes on the Peruvian coast and to determine whether such
climate fluctuations could have had any major influence on the cultural development in the central
Peruvian coast. So far it seems not, and it is necessary to look at more social and economic factors
to understand the changes in the settlement pattern in the Central Coast.
4
This thesis is divided into two volumes. The first volume has eight chapters. Chapter 1 is the
introduction; Chapter 2 is the description of the study area, with its location and the characteristics
of the environmental setting. Chapter 3 is the analysis of the previous archaeological and
ethnohistoric work that has been done in the area of investigation. Chapter 4 is an explication of
the theoretical framework, stressing the discussion about the terms band, tribe, chiefdom, state
and empire, and the main models designed to explain the emergence of social complexity on the
Peruvian coast, along with the statement of the problem of investigation, the hypotheses, the
research methodology, and the objectives of the thesis.
Chapter 5 is the description of the three irrigation systems along with the archaeological sites
located there. Because the area is highly altered by modern urban expansion, ancient maps, aerial
pictures from 1944-1943, and modern maps were combined using CorelCAD in order to elaborate
a map of the area. Although it is impossible to know exactly how this section of the Rimac River
Valley was at the arrival of the Europeans, it was possible to locate the main archaeological sites,
irrigation systems and roads in the area of investigation. This map became the main tool in the
analysis of the settlement patterns during the different archaeological periods in the area of
investigation. Each identified site has a brief description and a chart about its location in UTM
coordinates and meters above sea level, the type of site, chronological position and the current
situation of the site, if it is still preserved, partially preserved or if it has completely disappeared.
The sites that have more information have a text with additional descriptions and the results of the
previous investigations developed there, along with pictures and maps.
Two main indicators were used to establish the cultural association and relative chronology of
the archaeological sites detected: pottery association and architecture. Pottery styles on the
Central Coast have been studied for a long time, and good sequences are available. Although it is
5
necessary to perform new investigations in order to enhance them, those sequences are good
enough to establish the relative chronology of the sites based on comparative analysis of their
pottery collections. Architectonic elements, especially the types of mud bricks and rammed earth
structures and how they were used to build walls and benches, were another useful source,
although not as fine as pottery, for the reconstructions of occupation sequences. At this point, it is
necessary to define two terms that are extensively used in this investigation: style and type. Strong
and Corbett, as part of the Viru Valley Project offer good definitions about them:
“…the classificatory term style represents a ceramic complex based upon an

aggregate of similar decorative and form features which occur in association so
consistently as to imply a cultural and temporal unity” (Strong and Corbett 1943:49).
“The term type is used to indicate a smaller category, usually decorative, which forms
a unit within the larger style. It is obvious that the number of types could be greatly
increased by marking finer distinctions…” (Strong and Corbett 1943:49).
In the Rimac River Valley eight styles have been defined, each one divided in several phases:
Ancon, Topara, Lima, Nieveria, Wari (Pachacamac and Chakipampa), Ychsma, Chancay, and
Inca.
There are several chronological sequences for Peruvian Pre-colonial times, based on different
theoretical approaches. In this investigation I used the chronology proposed by John Rowe (1962,
1965) based on the pottery sequence of the Ica River Valley located on the Peruvian South Coast,
which has been applied as a master sequence to the rest of the central Andes. This chronology did
not take into consideration social, economic or cultural changes. It is based on variations in the
morphology and decoration of pottery vessels. This sequence begins with a long period known as
6
“Preceramic” that covers the time between the arrivals of the first population in the Late
Pleistocene era to the first monumental architectonic settlements at the end of the period. The next
phase is named Initial, when the first pottery emerged in the Andes and was divided into 10
epochs. In Lima it is equivalent to the first 3 phases of the Ancon pottery style. The Early Horizon
Period was divided into 10 epochs and it is equivalent to the last 7 phases of the Ancon pottery
style. During this period Chavin culture, from the northern highlands, expanded through several
places in Peru including the central Peruvian coast, through a pottery style that is known as
Janabarriu. The Early Intermediate Period was divided into eight epochs and was a time of
regional cultural traditions, with Topara and Early and Middle Lima pottery styles in the Rimac
Valley. During the Middle Horizon Period the Wari Empire expanded through the Peruvian coast
and highlands, and was divided into four epochs with Late Lima and Nieveria pottery styles in
Epoch 1, and Pachacamac, Chakipampa, Pativilca and Nieveria Derivative pottery styles in epoch
2. Epochs 3 and 4 are not very well defined on the Central Coast and maybe they do not exist in
the area. The Late Intermediate Period is another time of regionalization after the collapse of
Wari, and was divided into 8 epochs. In the Rimac River Valley the first half of this period saw
the development of the Three-color Geometric and Early Ychsma pottery styles, and the second
half of the period, Middle Ychsma and Late Ychsma A phases. The Late Horizon Period is the
time of the Inca Empire expansion with the Inca and the Late Ychsma B phase styles (Table 4-3).
With this chronological framework I analyzed the pottery collections from ten archaeological
sites of the area of investigation. The objectives of this investigation, along with the method and
main conclusions, are presented in Chapter 6.
Another important part of the investigation, presented in Chapter 7, was the analysis of
Colonial Period documental information from the Rimac River Valley, especially about the area
7
of investigation related to the Ychsma, Lima, Maranga, Callao and Ychsma polities that existed
during the Late Horizon and the Colonial periods and were absorbed by the Spanish Crown in the
Sixteenth Century. Those documents are chronicles, written between the sixteenth and the
eighteenth centuries, along with accounts of trials about the possession of lands, visits that the
Spanish authorities made to the polities in order to recover information about population size and
other matters in order to establish tribute, and the wills of the lords that had descriptions of their
possessions including lands with their original names. In general, the documents offered very
scarce information. Those authorities did not investigate many aspects of the indigenous
population like their political organization, their history, religion, festivities or their labor
organization for the construction and maintenance of monumental buildings and the irrigation
systems.
In spite of that, the Colonial Period documents had very important information about the
political organization and territorial distribution of those old polities. Previous ethnohistorical
investigations have been made in Lima and Callao (Romero 1936; Rostworowski 1977, 1978,
1981-82, 1990, and 1999; Flores-Zúñiga 2000, 2001, 2013; Charney 2001; Adanaqué 1993, 2008-
2009; Lohmann 1984) and in other parts of the Peruvian coast, especially in the valleys of the
North Coast (Ramirez 1995, 1996; Hayashida 2006; Netherly 1984) with very important results.
The investigation of the Colonial Period information was made using many documents that have
been published over time, but also, it was necessary to transcribe unedited documents deposited in
the National Library of Peru and the General National Archive of Peru. The Colonial Period
documents allowed the determination of the territorial extension of the polities, along with the
names of several parcels, towns and huacas, and the names of the main and, in some cases,
secondary lords in each polity.
8
The interpretation of the results, with a reconstruction of the sequence of occupation, the
settlement pattern in each identified period and the models of political organization, resulting
form the combination of the settlement pattern and the Colonial Period information, is presented
in Chapter 8. Although no radiocarbon dating was made during this investigation, the published
dates from several sites of the Central Coast were evaluated using the program Oxcal version 14
with the calibration curve SHCal13 (Hogg et al. 2013) available at http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk, in
order to put the pottery styles and phases in a better chronological framework. There is also a
comparison of the results with other Peruvian coastal valleys where similar studies were made.
Finally, Chapter 9 presents the final results of the investigation contrasted with the original
hypotheses proposed and some final thoughts about the origin of social complexity in the
Peruvian coast.
In Volume II there are 4 appendixes where the pottery analysis is presented in detail. Appendix
A is the pottery typology with a classification and description of all the ceramic types detected
described, according to the styles to which they belong, accompanied with pictures and technical
drawings. In total 3549 pottery specimens were analyzed, comprising complete and partially
complete vessels, figurines, musical instruments, modified sherds, and diagnostic fragments of
rims, handles, bases, and sherds with incised, painted and sculptured decoration. The association
and provenance of the analyzed specimens are presented in Appendix B. Appendix C is an
analysis of the pottery specimens from the area of investigation that have been published from
different previous investigations. The objective of this chapter is to widen the number of
specimens in order to have a better cultural and chronological association of the sites located in
the valleys of La Magdalena, Maranga, and La Legua valleys. In Appendix D the results from the
three previous appendixes are compared with the main pottery sequences in the Central Coast:
9
Ancon (Rosas 1970), Lima (Patterson 1966), Nieveria and Wari (Menzel 1964), Geometric Three
Color and Ychsma (Vallejo 2004) in order to establish the relative chronology of the sites. There
is also a comparative analysis with the pottery published from other sites on the Central Coast,
especially Ancon Bay and the Chillon, Rimac, Lurin and Chilca valleys, in order to find
regularities with other sites and a better identification of the styles and phases. In the case of
cultures that expanded over a wide area in Peru, like Topara, Wari, and Inca, a comparison was
also made with published collections from other places in the Peruvian highlands and coastal
areas.
10
N
Peru South America
Area of
Investigation
Pacific Atlantic
Ocean Ocean
Map 1-1: Peru and the area of investigation in South America

11
      

N

Amazon River


1
Lambayeque River
 2 3
Jequetepeque River

Chicama River 4 5
Moche River
Viru River6
Santa River

Casma River

7
Huarmey River
Supe River
Huaura River 8
Chancay River 9
Chillon River 10
 Rimac River11
Lurin River 12
Pacific Chilca River
16
Ocean  13 18
Chincha River 14 17 25
Pisco River
15

19 20
Ica River 21 24
Andean coast and Rio Grande-Nasca River 23
western slopes
22
Acari River Titicaca
Lake

Andean highlands
Andean eastern slopes 26

Osmore River
Amazon plains

0 km 100 200 300 400 500 600 km
Map 1-2: Sites mentioned in the text.

1. Nanchoc, 2. San Jose del Moro, 3. El Palacio, 4. Chan Chan, 5. Huaca Caballo Muerto and Galindo, 6.
Sun and Moon Huacas of Moche, 7. Chavin de Huantar, 8. Chupacigarro (Caral), 9. Ancon, 10.
Cajamarquilla, 11. Maranga, 12. Pachacamac, 13. Topara, 14. UPIS San Jose, 15. Wari Kayan, 16. Wari, 17.

23. Cahuachi, 24.Tenahaha, 25. Cusco, 26. Tiahuanaco .
12
8700
Ancon Bay
1800 2000
N 1 2200
8695
2
8690
3
4
8685
6 5
e
in e
7
vin
av
Ra
8680
r ca
de
 8
an
ma
10
Gr
9
a
Jic
Piedra Liza
nto
22
Ca
channel 17 18 19 23
8675 11
Boca Negra 12 15
channel 14 21 el
20 ha nn
16 ec
8670 13 At
Rimac River 24
La Legua 29 25
La Magdalena 27 26
channel
30 channel
8665 32 28
31
l
a nne
34 38
el
nn
La Punta
ch
35 36 37
ha
33
Peninsula
c
Ate
San Lorenzo Maranga 39 rco
channel 40 41
Su
8660 Island
Huatica 42
 channel
Island
8655
Pacific Solar
43
44
45 49
8650
Ocean Headland
50
46
47
8645
48
Lurin River
8640
2500 2550 2555 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 310
1 km 0 1 km
Map 1-3: Peruvian Central Coast and sites mentioned in the text

Fortress, 7: La Uva, 8: Cerro Culebras, 9: El Paraiso, 10: Huaca Naranjal, 11: Huaca Aznapuquio 12:
Huaca Garagay, 13: Huaca La Florida, 14: El Triunfo, 15: Canto Chico; 16: Huaca Azcarrunz; 17:Huaca

Huachipa; 22: El Vallecito, 23: Huampani; 24: Huaca La Salina; 25: Huaquerones; 26: Puruchuco 27:
Huacas Granados, 28. Huaca Vazques, 29: Macatampu, 30: Maranga, 31: Mateo Salado, 32: Bellavista;
33: Huaca Huantille; 34: Huaca La Universidad, 35: Huaca El Golf, 36: Limatambo; 37: Huaca Santa

Pucllana; 42: Bajada Balta; 43: Armatambo; 44:Tablada de Lurin Cemetery; 45: Pampa Chica, 46: Villa
El Salvador Cemetery; 47: El Panel Cemetery; 48: Pachacamac; 49:Huaca Cardal ; 50: Pueblo
Viejo-Pucara.
13
CHAPTER 2
The study Area and Environmental Setting
The research area is located on the Central Coast of Peru, along the left or south margin of the
lower Valley of the Rimac River. To the South and West it borders the Pacific Ocean, on the
North the Rimac River and on the East the ancient canal of La Magdalena (Map 1-3).
The area of investigation is located within the UTM coordinates 8665000-8669000 mS and
2635000-2790000 mE, covering an area of approximately 50.8 Km². The lowest point is at the
level of the sea on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, and the highest point, 150 m.a.s.l., is on the
Rimac River at the eastern inlet of the common channel where the channels of La Magdalena,
Maranga and La Legua originate (Map 1-4).
Until the beginning of the Twentieth Century the area had three large urban areas, the city of
Lima (the current “Historic Downtown”), the port of Callao, the annex village of Bellavista, and
the town of La Magdalena (now Pueblo Libre district). In the area between these settlements there
were large estates dedicated to farming and cattle breeding, and between Lima and Callao the
small village and church of La Legua (now Carmen de La Legua district). Those lands were
irrigated by three main channels: La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua that came from the
Rímac River, as noted above. During the Twentieth Century this territory went through an
accelerated process of urbanization, eliminating farms and agricultural fields, and destroying
many archaeological sites. The research area is located within the Province of Lima (districts of
Cercado, Breña, Pueblo Libre, San Miguel and Magdalena del Mar) and the Constitutional
Province of Callao (districts of Bellavista, Callao, Carmen de la Legua, La Perla and La Punta).
14
The Rimac River is one of the rivers of the Andean Pacific slope born from high Andean lakes,
such as Uco at 5100-4900 m.a.s.l. and Quillacocha 4900 m.a.s.l., which are formed by the melting
of the glacier Ticlio. After traversing an area of glaciers and snow, the river increases its flow, fed
by small rivers like the Chicla at 3450 m.a.s.l. At this elevation the river is very turbulent due to
the pronounced natural slope, forming in some places canyons as in Viso and Matucana. The
Valley, until then narrow, expands progressively, especially near the town of Ricardo Palma or
Mama where the Santa Eulalia River joins the Rimac at 940 m.a.s.l. As the valley continues to
expand it passes through the towns of Chosica, Chaclacayo and Ate. At Puruchuco, at 317
m.a.s.l., the valley ceases to be constrained by the foothills, forming an extensive alluvial cone 30
km wide, constituting the lower Valley of the Rimac River, where the cities of Lima and El Callao
are located. The river finally flows into the Pacific Ocean immediately North of the port of
Callao. The length of the Rimac is, more or less, 140 km and its basin has an area of
approximately 3700 km² (Peñaherrera 1987:113-115).
The lower Valley of the Rimac River is composed of boulders, gravel, sand and clay alternated
in strata or combined together. It has a slightly inclined surface that makes it lower towards the
west, a gradient around 2° and 3° between Callao and Chorrillos. However, with the exception of
La Punta, the rest of the shoreline is characterized by the presence of cliffs that reach up to 82 m
high (Roux et al. 2000:499), decreasing in height progressively northward until reaching sea level
at La Punta. The Rímac alluvial fan is framed in the north by the geological formations called
"Puente Piedra", between the Rímac and Chillón valleys, and to the South by the formation
"Morro Solar", between the Rímac and Lurín valleys, both from the Cretaceous Period. A study of
the cliffs of Lima allowed recognition of three major stratigraphic units. First there is a basal
deposit 400 m thick composed of sandstone, siltstone and shale (Le Roux et al. 2000:501).
15
Overlying these deposits is a succession of conglomerates known as the Lima Conglomerate, at
least 86 m thick (Arce 1984), with fine layers of sandstones and mudstones (Karakouzian et al.
1996). Over this conglomerate in some places there are layers of siltstones and mudstones with a
thickness of more than 16 m (Karakouzian et al. 1996), especially in depressions along the
southern edges of the Rimac River Valley.
The "Lima Formation" has been exposed in the cliffs of the Bay of Lima. Inside it, there is a
vast mass of groundwater that exists through leaks from the Rímac River as well as from
irrigation channels (Quintana and Tovar 2002:304). A study in 1997 found that the aquifer was at
a variable depth, between 5 m in the southern edge and up to 100 m in the central area of the
lower valley of the Rimac River (Quintana and Tovar 2002:305). Although today it is widely
accessed through drilling wells, its use in Pre-colonial times was much smaller. There was only
one known surface water outcrop, called "Puquios del Chivato”. Currently disappeared, it was
located between Callao and La Legua and was fed by leakage from the Rímac and discharges of
the channel of La Legua.
The area of investigation is located within the natural zone known as the eco-region of the
Pacific Desert, which stretches from northern Peru down to northern Chile. It is characterized by a
warm climate in summer (December to March) and cool in winter (May to September) with fog
covering the coast. The fog, locally known as garua, is generated by the cold waters of the
Humboldt Current that comes to the Peruvian coast from the Antarctica. The relative humidity is
very high, reaching 100% in winter, accompanied sometimes by a very light rain. The average
temperature ranges from 18° C to 19° C (64.4 ° F to 66.2 ° F) with an annual variation of 6° C
(Brack 1987:273-274).
16
The most important natural resource was the Rimac River, whose waters were used for human
and animal consumption, and for irrigating the agricultural fields. Since the water table is too
deep, the only way to get drinking water was through channels from the Rimac River.
The Valley was the next natural resource in importance. Thanks to the irrigation system, a
layer between 1 and 2 m thick of silt (and clay) rich in nutrients was formed covering the gravel
of the “Lima Formation. This layer was used for agriculture and also to make adobe bricks and
rammed earth for the constructions and to make pottery. This silt could be renewed every year
when the river increased its flow during the summer months.
The cold sea provided abundant food resources, particularly fish, echinoderms, crustaceans and
mollusks. Their remains have been found in abundance in the archaeological sites of the Rimac
River Valley.
The lomas were another important resource. They are areas of annual seasonal vegetation
appearing in the winter months and are generated by the humidity that is concentrated in certain
places on the Western flanks of the Andean foothills. Although in the area of investigation there
are no lomas, there are some on the northern side of the Rimac River Valley in Amancaes and
Mangomarca. The lomas provided some plant species for human consumption and animals, like
deer, for hunting.
17
CHAPTER 3
Previous Archaeological and Ethnohistorical studies in the valleys of La Magdalena, La
Legua and Maranga
The first reference about the area of investigation belongs to Charles Darwin who arrived at
Callao in 1835 during his travel around the world on board the Beagle. He noticed the “Bellavista
Shell Mound” site located in a plain over the cliffs facing San Lorenzo Island. He noted the
existence of alternate layers of sand and clay with gravel on the cliff and in the top a reddish loam
containing mollusk shells and pottery sherds. He thought that during an earthquake, and
subsequent tsunami, the area inhabited by the people who manufactured the pottery was covered
with mud from the sea bottom mixing the seashells with the fragments of pottery (Darwin
1864:134-136).
The British traveler Thomas Joseph Hutchinson visited Peru between 1871 and 1872,
making drawings and descriptions of numerous archaeological sites. He called the area between
Callao, Lima, and La Magdalena "Huatica Valley", actually a mistake since the Huatica channel
and its valley were located more eastward. He paid attention to the Maranga archaeological group,
called by him "Ancient city of Huatica", a name which he drew from the Colonial Period
manuscript of Cerdán y Pontero, where an irrigation channel called "the city” or “Huatica" is
mentioned. Hutchinson mistakenly thought that Cerdán was referring to those ruins (Hutchinson
1873:275) when in fact it was the city of Lima. He counted 17 “huacas” that he considered
residences, castles or fortresses and a fencing of three walls in the inner part of the city. In the
West part there was a huge huaca that he called “The Bell” (“La Campana” now called “Huaca
Tres Palos”), that he considered to be the "Arambolu fortress" presided over by "...the great Chief
18
yunca Huachici", information which he extracted from the manuscript of Cerdán y Pontero
(Hutchinson 1873:276). However, this document says nothing about those claims. It is not known
if Hutchinson read it in another text and was confused or simply invented it.
He also described the “huacas of Pando”, which according to him were east of the
settlement, when in reality they are to the North. Another error of Hutchinson was calling these
pyramids with that name because the Pando estate was located southeast of Maranga. The three
main “huacas of Pando” were the larger temples of the city: “La Concha”, with a wooden cross on
the top, the “Central Huaca” (now called Huaca Aramburu), and the third, unnamed by him, but
which is known nowadays as “Huaca Middendorff” (Hutchinson 1873:276). They were made
with small sun dried bricks with the traces of the fingers of those who manufactured them on the
surface (Hutchinson 1873:279). Two miles south of “Huaca La Campana” was “Huaca San
Miguel”, which Hutchinson thought was the "Huaca Huantillee", information which, according to
him, he took also from Cerdán y Pontero’s manuscript (Hutchinson 1873:283-284). But it is also
wrong because that Colonial Period document said nothing about it. He believed that all the
buildings were coeval with the “huacas of Pando” for funerary purposes, while “La Campana”
and “Huantille” huacas were fortresses that protect the city in the south.
A mile from "Arambolu", Hutchinson found a large square with four huge mounds, one on each
side of the square and with another quadrilateral space in the middle. He thought that this site was
the Temple of the Rimac god, although it was commonly believed at that time that Mateo Salado
lived in this place (Hutchinson 1873:287 - 288). He thought, however, that it was wrong because,
according to him, Mateo Salado’s hermitage was at Huaca Ocharan (now called Huaca Pucllana)
(Hutchinson 1873:300). He also mentioned a "fortress of Garmendi" (Hutchinson 1873:288) and
numerous mounds in the estate of some "Mr. Campbell", the location of which is currently
19
unknown, but it should be close to the town of La Magdalena (Hutchinson 1873:291). Despite his
many mistakes, Hutchinson’s work is very important because of the descriptions and drawings of
sites that no longer exist today or are now very modified.
Ephraim Squier traveled around Peru in 1864, and about the area of investigation, he mentioned
a "fortress of San Miguel" that was located between Lima and the seashore, close to the town of
“La Magdalena”. He did not give further details, but it is possible that he was describing the
“Huaca Huantille”. He also indicated that numerous ancient structures made of mud were
destroyed in order to make mud-bricks for modern constructions. He mentioned a site in the path
to Limatambo Estate composed of a temple or “huaca” surrounded by a double wall 4 to 8 km
long by 4.87 m high in some places, and having an entrance with two pillars or square columns in
the interior (Squier 1877:45). This description seems to correspond to the Great Enclosure of
Maranga.
The German traveler E.W. Middendorff also published his explorations in Peru describing
numerous archaeological sites located in Lima. He mapped the "city of Huadca" locating 15
mounds that he identified using numbers. He was the first to establish that this archaeological site
had two major periods of occupation: the oldest with the buildings made of small mud-bricks
located in the North part of the site, and the other, with large walls made of rammed earth,
situated in the South. He based his idea on the fact that the north part looked more ruined than the
south section of the city. Unlike Hutchinson, he thought that this architectural difference was
chronological and not due to different functions. He described in detail the Great Enclosure,
locating the main accesses: two in the north and one in the west (Middendorff 1894:56-69). He
also published valuable photos of those sites, showing how they were at the end of the 19th
20
century. However, he made the same error as Hutchinson, believing that this site was “Huadca”,
the Pre-colonial name of Huatica.
The German archaeologist Max Uhle stated at the beginning of the 20th century that the
Valley of Rimac River went through four phases of occupation during archeological times. The
oldest populations were very simple fishermen, whose remains he found in Bellavista, the same
site described by Darwin, where he discovered ceramics with “comma shape edges”, as well as in
other sites in the valleys of the Chancay and Supe rivers, and at Ancon. They lived in shell
middens, buried their dead flexed and manufactured textiles and ceramics in a very simple way.
Then, those populations established contacts with cultures more advanced from the South Coast in
Ica and Nazca, leading to the emergence of the "Proto-Lima" culture, whose evidence he found in
the sites of Nieveria and Aramburu (now the northern section of Maranga). On these pyramids
there was evidence of Tiahuanaco pottery although scarce, leading him to think that its presence
at the site was brief. Uhle also excavated at the top of the Huaca Aramburu, finding Proto-Lima
broken vessels that he believed were part of a place for storing provisions for the temple. The
following phases correspond to the late occupations which included a period of epigonal styles of
Tianuanaco and finally the Inca Empire (Uhle 1998). He also made a detailed map of the huacas
Aramburu and Concha (Wurster 1999).
Based on Uhle’s work, the idea of a Tiahuanaco and Aymara language expansion across
the country, including Lima, began to be fairly common among the scholars. Wiesse said that the
Aymara language was spoken about 1000 or 1500 years ago from the Lake Aullagas in Bolivia to
the south, up to the Valley of the Rimac in the north where some snow-capped mountains and
other geographic places have names originating from that language (Wiesse 1913:54).
21
Ainsworth Means also described the huacas of Maranga. He distinguished the buildings made
with small mud-bricks from those made with rammed earth and noticed that both types of
architecture were in use from the earliest civilized times until the Spanish conquest. However, he
acknowledged that the two types were not combined in a single building. He thought that
Maranga should have defensive functions in times of war (Means 1931:526). He described a
building with friezes of staggered crosses, now disappeared, that he called "the house of the
Chief", which he found very similar to Chan Chan on the North Coast (Means 1931:526). He also
took pictures of the huacas of Maranga, including one of Huaca Aramburu, partially demolished
in 1924 during the construction of “El Progreso” road that links Lima with Callao port (Means
1931:527).
The historian Carlos Romero, who was Max Uhle’s assistant during his explorations in
Lima, made many statements that had great influence on the development of the archaeology and
ethnohistory of the Valley of the Rímac River. Unfortunately few of this works survived to the
present day. It is known that he wrote a voluminous treatise entitled "Archaeology of the Lima
Valley", mentioned by Villar (1935) and dated to 1924. It is also mentioned in an interview for
the newspaper “El Comercio” of Lima on September 14, 1938. However that manuscript is
currently missing. It is estimated that it may have burned in the fire of the National Library in
1943.
Romero stated, based on his studies of Colonial Period documents, that there were 22 ancient
towns in the Valley of Lima:
"...Chayacalca (the current Magdalena) that was the place where the regulus lived;
Maranga, Surco and Carahualla the three main settlements or “hunus” after the incas
22
conquered this land; Lima, where Pizarro founded the capital; Huancho-huallas,
today known as the ruins of Anchihualas; Huachipa, called Cajamarquilla by the
Spaniards, for reasons that I have not been able to discover. Tilaco; Cayac;
Huancané; Lati – today Ate-; Huatca - currently called Huatica; Pariachi;
Chuquitanta; Cacahuasi; Collique; Comas; Pucurucha; Hualla; Huarinhuanchos -
now Lurigancho; Yanatanta and Sotechumbe. The tambos were Tamboinga in the
Valley of Carahualla; Macat in front of the city of Huatca - Limatambo and
Irmatambo beyond Surco... the two fisheries were those of Surco - so called - now the
town of Chorrillos, and Callao, with the same name; because it is necessary to take
into account that Callao is an indigenous name” (my translation) (El Comercio,
September the 14th, 1938).
He also pointed out that, when the Inca Sinchi Roca settled in Cuzco, he expelled two Aymara
tribes, the Alcavices and the Huallas. The Huallas, with their main chief “Puglia”, settled in Lima,
between Barranco and La Magdalena, an area that became known as the "Valley of Hualla" where
there is a “huaca” known as Pugliana. At the time of the Conquest the chieftain of the area was
called Puglia Cassa. After that, another Aymara migration, probably from Collao, arrived. When
the Inca Huaina Capac ruled, the chieftain of the Lima Valley was Cassa-Pajsi who lived in
Chayacalca (El Comercio, September 14th, 1938).
Romero did not indicate which documents he used to claim this. He also indicated that
Callao was a Quechua settlement, but because there is a place near the port called “Chucuito”, the
name of a town located near the Titicaca Lake, there must have been also an Aymara migration.
He partially transcribed a Colonial Period document pointing out the existence of a genealogy of
chieftains of Callao. Also, the San Lorenzo Island was called in ancient times “Sina”, a word that
means sterility in Aymara, according to one chronicler of the 18th century (Romero 1936).
23
The priest and archaeologist Pedro Villar Cordova published a compendium about the
archaeology of Lima (Villar 1935). Based on the study of Lima’s toponymy and archaeological
edifications, he argued that Aymara had spread from the Peru-Bolivian highland plateau, reaching
Ecuador and Colombia during the Tiahuanaco expansion, reaching Lima between the VIII and IX
centuries of our era. That idea was taken from Carlos Romero who, according to Villar, explained
this during the Third Pan-American Scientific Congress in 1924, when he stated that three
Aymara groups arrived in Lima the Kollas, the Huanchos and the Huallas (Villar 1935:63-64).
Villar Cordova also said that the Collas arrived in the Mantaro River Basin in the Peruvian
central highlands and moved through the streams of Canta and Huarochiri, occupying those
valleys and reaching Collique, Chucuito and Callao (Villar 1935:66-67). The Huanchos moved
from San Mateo of Hanan-Huancho (this town is actually called “San Mateo de Huanchor”),
moved through the Rímac Valley and arrived to Chosica and Lurigancho (Lurin-Huancho),
occupying both sides of the Rímac River Valley. The Huanchos would have been the inhabitants
of Huanchipa, Huancho.Huallas, Carapongo, Caraponguillo, Caxamarquilla, Lati, Macat and
Lurin-Huancho (Villar 1935:67). The third group was the Huallas who moved to Carabayllo from
Alto-Chancay and Canta, leaving the toponymies of Kara-Hualla (Carabayllo), Kopa Kabana,
Huadca-Hualla, Maranca, Surco and Marca-Huillca (Villar 1935:68). He also pointed out that the
Muchik people from the North Coast spread to the Valley of Carabayllo (Villar 1935:68).
Villar Cordova established a sequence of five phases for Lima, very similar to Uhle’s
sequence. The first phase was named “Ancon culture” (500 1000 A.D.) in which the people lived
in coastal bays, made black pottery decorated with incisions and left thick dumps of mollusk
shells, as in Ancon (Villar 1935:89). The next phase is the Nepeña Culture, when the coast
receives influences of Chavín culture from the northern highlands. There were pyramidal temples
24
in the coast and the main divinity was the feline (Villar 1935:89). The following phase is the
"Lima Culture" with peasants that lived in large camps on the hills. The temples were made with
small handmade bricks, as "Waka Aramburu", “Waka Juliana " and the primitive sanctuary of
Pachacamac. The ceramic is called Nieveria (Villar 1935:90). Then, there is the influence of the
Tiahuanaco culture especially Uhle’s “Epigonal Style” (Villar 1935:91). The next phase is the
“Chancay Culture”, the best example of the "Tiawanakoide culture", a period that stretches
between AD 1000 to 1400 years, until the Inca expansion (AD 1400-1535) (Villar 1935:91-92).
The architecture was made using rammed earth for the walls and the towns’. In addition to this,
the toponyms of Lima’s towns are in Aymara: "Cajamarquilla, Cara-Hualla, Copa-cabana,
Chuquitanta, Huanchipa, Lurin, Huacho, Carapongo, Ñaña, Lati, Puruchuco, Huaycán,
Huancane, Surco, Marca-Vilca" (Villar 1935:91).
Villar Cordova also made a classification of the types of construction found in the Valley of
Lima. The Subtype 1 consists of simple constructions made of boulders, and other stones
associated with the primitive coastal fishing villages (Villar 1935:106). “Subtype 2” are
constructions of round or “tooth-shape” adobe bricks (Villar 1935:179). “Subtype 3” is composed
of constructions made of small mud-bricks as in Maranca and Juliana huacas, where those bricks
were disposed vertically in successive rows in a technique called by Villar “bookshelf” (Villar
1935:180). “Subtype 4” are constructions made of rammed earth (Villar 1935:106). “Subtype 5”
consists of walls with large adobe bricks found in coastal Inca constructions (Villar 1935:180-
181). He also classified the constructions according to their functions: civil architecture,
Cajamarquilla and Huaycan; military architecture, fortified cities garnished by great walls of
rammed earth, Cayacalca, Marca-Willca, Conde de las Torres, Lati, Puruchuca (Villar 1935:188-
189); and fortresses isolated from the towns, as those located on the hills of Kollique and
25
Atocongo. Finally there is the religious architecture with pyramids, such as Huaca Aramburu in
Maranga, which were temples or astronomical observatories (Villar 1935:193).
Martín Pastor also accepted Romero’s ideas about the Huallas and Huanchos or Huanches
tribes, that might be aymaras or puquinas, who invaded Lima under the command of a chieftain
called Pucllo or Puclla. But he did not say what the source of such information was. The Hualla
had a huaca which kept the name of their chieftain and became known as the Pucllana. Then, the
Huanchos, pushed by the Inca conquests, arrived in Lima and perhaps after wars and battles ended
up sharing the territory with the Huallas (Pastor 1942:390). Many towns appeared in the Rimac
River Valley: Callac, Tillaco, Palao, Lurinhuancho, Mangomarca, Huanchipa, Jicamarca or
Cajamarquilla, and Ñaña, on the northern side of the valley, and Chaclacayo, Huascata, Huancho
Huallas, Lati, Sotechumbe or Sotechumbi, Pucurucho or Puruchuca, Cacahuasi or Jajahuasi,
Cantaveque, located roughly where is Bellavista; Maranca or Maranga, not far from the huacas
today named Aramburu; Chayacalca, ranging from La Magdalena to San Miguel; Hualla or
Surquillo next to Pucllana; Huatca crossed by the Huatica channel; and Sullca or Marcahuilca. At
San Lorenzo Island, named in ancient times Shina, there is said of have been a Moche fishing
village (Pastor 1942:391). Pastor also said that the Incas built four tambos” in Lima: Tamboinga,
Macat, Rimactambo and Armatambo or Irmatambo (Pastor 1942:392-393). He argued as well that
there was a semi-feudal organization of the Valley, with a main lord, called the “tucuiricuc”
installed by the Inca, and whose residence was at “Huaca del Estanque” (called now “Huaca Tres
Palos”). Under the Tucuiricuc were the chiefs of Maranga, Sullca and Carahualla, called
hununcamayocs, and also a main chieftain whose settlement was located in Chayacalca. There
were also Pucllacasa, Trianchumbi and Taulichusco, chieftains of Hualla, Sullca and Lima
respectively (Martin Pastor 1942:393). The village of Lima chieftain may have been located in the
26
place where Pizarro founded the “City of the Kings”, according to the chronicler Cobo, and by the
fact that, supposedly, there was a huaca under the House of Jerónimo de Silva close to the
Government Palace (Pastor 1942:395). Pastor did not mention the sources of his information.
In 1925 the Ecuadorian archeologist Jacinto Jijón y Caamaño excavated the huacas Aramburu
(called Huaca 1 by Jijón), Concha (Huaca II) and Middendorf (huacas III and IV) of Maranga. His
major excavations focused on huaca III where he established a construction sequence of several
phases, and noticed changes in construction materials and associated pottery. The ceramics
discovered during the excavations were classified in various types grouped into two styles called
"Maranga" and "Cajamarquilla". He also found human burials in the earliest occupations. The
burials had musical instruments, rag dolls, baskets, dogs and trophy heads accompanying the
corpses as funerary offerings (Jijón 1949:34).
Jijón y Caamaño also found a large raft made of reeds, placed inside a construction fill as an
offering during the Second Construction phase of the pyramid (Jijón 1949:14-15). In the upper
layers he discovered many burials with the corpses seated and placed in funerary bundles wrapped
in several textiles. The funerary offerings included bottle gourds, ceramic vessels of the late styles
of the Valley and instruments for textile production (Jijón 1949:105-151). He suggested that the
Proto-Lima people were farmers and warriors that had come to Lima from the highlands,
conquering the primitive coastal fishermen. He saw them as part of a cultural stream originally
from Colombia that produced a ceramic that he called "Negative three-color" style. Another 'type,
which he called “White on red” style, emerged at the same time, and its use continued until the
Conquest (Jijón1949:500-501). The Cajamarquilla style followed the "Negative three-color" style
and was influenced by styles of the North and South coasts. The huacas were abandoned during
27
Tiahuanaco times for unknown reasons, becoming cemeteries until the Inca Period (Jijón
1949:509).
In 1925 Alfred L. Kroeber excavated Maranga, especially the huacas Aramburu and
Middendorff. As Jijón, he found small mud-brick walls, and ceramics inside the fills. He also
mapped the pyramids, took photographs (Kroeber 1954: 15-16) and found 15 "Proto-Lima"
human burials with the corpses extended on stretchers or pallets, accompanied by offerings of
pottery vessels, baskets, bottle gourds, rag dolls, and textile instruments (Kroeber 1954:15-16).
Kroeber argued that the small mud-brick pyramids were built during Proto-Lima times and
abandoned in Tiahuanaco times, and finally reused as cemeteries in late times by the Chancay
Culture (Kroeber 1954:116). Proto-Lima, more than a static culture, was a development with two
moments, the first one called Maranga and the next one Cajamarquilla (Kroeber 1954:117), and
was influenced by coastal Tiahuanaco and Nazca (Kroeber 1954:123-124).
In 1953 Marino Gonzales made excavations in Huaca Aramburu when the Naval Hospital was
built, that lead to the partial destruction of the West platform identified by Middendorf as “Mound
18”. He found a stepped structure and a funeral bundle as well as ceramic in the architectural fills.
The results of those works were never published and there is only a field report (Gonzales 1954).
Stumer did a study about the archaeology of the Rimac River Valley, following a model
implemented by Richard P. Schaedel in 1951 for the archaeological settlements in the North
Coast. According to Stumer there were five types of sites in the Valley: ceremonial centers with
pyramids or huacas like the huacas Juliana (Pucllana), Maranga, and Vista Alegre, Cajamarquilla
and Huaca Trujillo; “urban lay centers” such as Lurigancho or Pedreros; “Provincial Elite
Centers” like Pando and Huadtca; “Urban Elite Centers” like Cajamarquilla and Armatambo; and
28
the "Unit Sites", the most numerous, ranging from the Preceramic Period to the Inca Empire and
consisting of small settlements made of adobe bricks or rocks and rammed earth (Stumer
1954:141).
Stumer identified in Maranga three different sites belonging to three different periods:
Huadtca, composed of the “Great Enclosure” and some smaller constructions in the periphery;
Pando, composed of 5 large pyramidal structures forming a rectangle with one pyramid in each
corner plus one more in the middle, encircled by walls of medium size; and Maranga comprising
the pyramids of small mud-bricks in the north part of the settlement (Stumer 1954:139-140).
Stumer argued that the only Chavinoid/Ancon site in the Rimac River Valley was Bellavista.
During the next period, called the “Fluorescent” time, ceremonial centers emerged in the Rimac,
Chillón and Lurin valleys with large pyramids made of small mud-bricks. During the next time,
called “Great Fusion”, the Tiahuanaco Culture influenced Lima, with three phases: “Tiahuanacoid
1”, which was especially felt in Maranga, “Tiahuanacoid 2” in Huadtca and “Tiahuanacoid 3”
(Stumer 1954:144).
Stumer took the name “Huancho” proposed by Romero and used it to identify the late culture
in the Rimac Valley. This culture is characterized by an architecture made of rammed earth and
stone walls, circular tombs, decorated textiles, funerary bundles, tattoos on fingers and arms,
swords for weaving made of llama and deer bones, wood and copper needles for blankets.
Huancho pottery is thick and brownish, with simple painted decoration, and when found in tombs
as funerary offerings it has use-wear marks and is blackened by soot. Apparently this culture
arrived to the coastal valleys virtually simultaneously during Tiahuanacoide II and replaced it.
The pottery has great similarities with ceramics from the highlands (Stumer 1954:142).
29
In 1960 minor rescue work was done in a mound, located in the lands of the “Pacific Fair” near
Maranga, before it was completely destroyed. The recovered materials and reports were deposited
in the archives of the National Museum of Archaeology where they were studied by Ruth Shady
in the 1980’s. She pointed out that the site was from the Formative Epoch. The architecture
consisted of walls made of spherical adobe bricks, and the associated pottery was monochrome
with incised decoration. She also described a group of sherds that were assigned to the "White on
Red" tradition from the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period, as well as another group of
sherds, collected from the mound’s surface from a local late tradition (Shady 1982b).
Between 1962 and 1963 the archaeologists Duccio Bonavia, Ramiro Matos and Félix Caycho
were part of a special committee called the “Metropolitan Deliberative Board of Archaeological
and Artistic Monuments”, making an inventory of archaeological sites in the Valley of Lima, due
to the accelerated destruction of archaeological sites. They described the sites, made sketches and
collected ceramics from the surface that were deposited in the Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology of San Marcos University, where they were analyzed for this thesis. They described
the whole Mateo Salado group, where five buildings are located (Bonavia et al. 1962-63:31-51),
Huaca Huantille (Bonavia et al. 1962-1963:63-65) and the archaeological site of Maranga where
they described 55 buildings, identifying each one with a correlative number from 13 to 68
(Bonavia et al. 1962-1963:70-164). These numbers are still used to identify those sites.
During the1960’s, as a result of the construction of the “Park of the Legends” Zoo inside the
archaeological group of Maranga, the Peruvian "National Board of Archaeology" carried out
excavations of several buildings at the huacas “La Palma”, “Cruz Blanca” and “San Miguel”. The
results of those studies were never published and the archaeological materials recovered were
deposited in some facilities inside the Zoo.
30
The historian Alberto Regal published a study on the Callao Port, making several assertions
without indicating the documental sources that he used. He said that there was a channel called
“Callao” with its origins in the “puquios” of “Chivatos” and “Miranaves,” close to the farms of La
Legua, Carrizal and Villegas. This channel supplied the port, but disappeared with the growth of
the city (Regal 1961:1-4). He also noted that there were some small lagoons to the South called
"Laguna Blanca" where wild ducks used to be hunted and where another irrigation channel
appeared heading towards the “Royal Road” from Callao to La Magdalena ending in the Bay
(Regal 1961:64). He also mentioned the existence of a huaca between the colonial castle of San
Miguel and the Callao walls, some "Inca ruins" between the road to the San Agustín estate and the
road to Lima, and a another huaca close to an old street, formerly known as Sal si Puedes (Regal
1967:71) inside Callao.
Regal also wrote that he saw some small mounds of spherical shape that were demolished
when La Costanera Avenue, between La Magdalena and Bellavista, was made in 1928. He found
there some mortar stones and seashells (Regal 1967:130). There was also a small huaca at the
intersection of Venezuela Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue, that was made with bricks about 0.30
m in height and 0.15 m long at the base (Regal 1967: 130). He noted that” Callao” was originally
a fishery with a village of huts located where the main market of the port is now and whose ruins
still remained until the early years of the Republic (Regal 1967:133). A “Royal Road” connected
Callao with the Maranga estate, passing by a place called La Ollería where there was an
establishment for pottery production during the Pre-colonial and Colonial periods. He also
mentioned that while he was doing topographic work in the fields of the Chacra Alta estate, he
found piles of broken dishes, pots and ash (Regal 1967:133). After crossing Maranga, the road
31
arrived to La Magdalena, one of whose chieftains, called Guacho-hatun, was baptized in the
Cathedral of Lima in 1540 (Regal 1967:134).
Using the chronological scheme of periods and epochs proposed by John Rowe (1962),
Dorothy Menzel (1964) divided the Middle Horizon Period into four epochs. She divided the
Middle Horizon Epoch 1 into 1A and 1B based on stylistic changes on ceramics from Ayacucho
in the highlands and the Ica-Nasca region of the South Coast. According to Menzel, the ceramic
diagnostics associated with Epoch 1A were not found in the Rimac valley, but for Epoch 1B, she
pointed out that there was a pottery style called Nieveria which had been called earlier "Proto-
Lima", "Maranga" and "Cajamarquilla", although she argued that not all the ceramics that were
called by those names belong to the Epoch 1B. Nieveria pottery is characterized by a fine paste
without many inclusions, thin walls, and shares traits with Chakipampa and Ocros pottery styles
from Ayacucho and Nasca 9 from the South coast, especially in the decorative designs (Menzel
1964:31-33). Middle Horizon Epoch 2 on the Central Coast is characterized by the presence of
the style Pachacamac A (Middle Horizon Epoch 2A) and Pachacamac B (Middle Horizon Epoch
2B). This style has similarities with other coeval styles like Robles Moqo from Ayacucho and
Atarco from the South Coast (Menzel 1964:53-61). She did not, however, establish what styles
existed on the Central Coast during the Middle Horizon Period epochs 3 and 4. Menzel argued
that with the fall of the Wari Empire at the end of Epoch 2B of the Middle Horizon Period
"..."Cajamarquilla and the old part of the city of Maranga, were apparently abandoned" (Menzel
1964:72).
In 1966 Thomas Patterson published his PhD thesis of 1964 about the pottery Styles from
Lima during the Early Intermediate Period. He argued that during this period there were two
pottery styles in the Central Coast, the Miramar and Lima styles. He established a sequence of 4
32
phases for the Miramar style, covering the first four epochs of the Early Intermediate Period, and
9 phases for the Lima style, covering the last four epochs of the Early Intermediate Period and the
Epoch 1A of the Middle Horizon Period. As part of his study, Patterson reviewed the materials
which had been recovered by the previous works of Kroeber and Jijón at Huaca III or Huaca
Middendorf in Maranga, Sestieri in Cajamarquilla, Uhle at the Nieveria Cemetery, as well as a
surface collection that he made at Huaca Pucllana (Juliana). This led him to state that the Lima
style made its appearance in the Rimac Valley during Lima Phase 4 during the Early Intermediate
Period Epoch 6 (Patterson 1966).
The name “Lima Style” finally replaced others like "Playa Grande", “Maranga” or
“Interlocking” and the Patterson sequence was widely accepted, despite certain criticisms made
by Lavallée based on her analysis of Lima pottery from Pachacamac, where she found that some
decorative types that had been defined by Patterson as different periods were found together in a
single piece (Lavallée 1965).
During the 1950s the University of San Marcos built its campus inside the north part of
Maranga destroying five pyramids. Between 1963 and 1969, new excavations were conducted in
Huaca Aramburu, which has been known since then as “Huaca San Marcos”. The University
never published the results of this work; only Pedro Alarcón wrote a thesis based on those
excavations, proposing three construction phases for the pyramid, which is identified by three
construction techniques based on the way in which the small mud-bricks were used. The latest,
post-Tiahuanaco, was called "Technique A", which is characterized by the use of reused bricks of
ancient structures, set untidily with abundant mud as mortar. The “Technique B”, called
"Tiahuanaoid", was characterized by the use of the small adobe bricks placed horizontally (on its
long and narrow side), forming large platforms and walls painted in yellow; the third technique,
33
and the oldest, the “Technique C” consists of small adobe bricks placed vertically and sideways, a
technique that is equivalent to Villar Cordova’s "bookshelf technique" (Alarcón 1971).
During the 1960’s and 1970’s the Seminar of Archaeology of the Riva-Aguero Institute from
the Catholic University of Peru, excavated several archaeological sites in the area of the former
Pando Estate in the valley of the Maranga channel. The excavated sites were the huacas “Tres
Palos”, “La Luz”, “Corpus I”, “Corpus II”, “Huaca 18”, and “Culebras” or “Huaca 65” and
“Huaca Juan XXIII”. The complete results of the excavations as well as the analysis of the
recovered artifacts have not been published until today, and the little that has been published only
refers to the most important findings. Those excavations revealed several construction phases in
all the huacas, from the Late Intermediate and Late Horizon periods, as well as many intrusive
human burials in older architecture. Only at “Huaca Corpus II” and “Huaca Juan XXIII” were
detected some construction phases from the Initial and Early Horizon periods (Buntinx 1969,
1970; Cárdenas 1965, 1970, 1971; Corbacho 1970 1971a, 1971b; Obando 1971; Olivera de Bueno
1970; Ramos de Cox 1969, 1970a, 1970b, 1971a, 1971b; Ramos de Cox 1974-75).
In 1975 MacNeish and colleagues proposed an occupation sequence of 20 periods for the
coastal and highlands areas of the central part of the country, ranging in time from the Preceramic
to the Late Horizon periods. In their scheme the most ancient occupation in the Rimac Valley
belongs to the “Gaviota” phase from the seventh period (1900-1750 BC) during pre-ceramic
times. This phase was originally defined in Ancon, although they did not specify in which part of
the Rimac Valley it was found. This phase consists of early farmers and fishermen (MacNeish et
al.1975:32-33).
34
During the Period 8 (1750-1050 BC) there are two pottery styles: Colinas between Ancon and
Chilca, characterized by its brown color (1400-1050 BC) and Curayacu (ca. 1200-1050 B.C.) in
the South (MacNeish et al. 1975:38). In this period the pre-ceramic ancient settlements were
abandoned and the people began to build great pyramids, such as La Florida located on the north
side of the Rimac Valley, 11 km from the Pacific Ocean in an area where agriculture could only
exist due to a long irrigation channel of four to six kilometers (MacNeish et al. 1975:38).
Period 9 (1050-450 B.C.) was characterized by the expansion of Chavín from the northern
highlands, influencing the local styles, although the settlement and subsistence system was the
same as the previous epoch. Garagay, placed on the right bank of the Valley continued in use
during this period (MacNeish et al. 1975:46). In the Period 10 (450 B.C. - A.D. 300) Miramar
style ceramics spread through the area of Ancon and Santa Rosa associated with small fishing
villages and some small public structures (MacNeish et al. 1975: 48-49) but no evidence of this
style was ever found in the Rimac Valley.
During Period 11 (AD 300-650) a relatively extensive multi-valley exchange network
appeared, and a state on the Central Coast, centered probably in the lower parts of the Rímac and
Chillón valleys (MacNeish et al. 1975:52). Lima pottery style (A.D. 250-600) and Nieveria (A.D.
600-650) belong to this period. The largest site in the Rimac Valley was Maranga. Other
important sites in the Valley were huaca Juliana (Pucllana) and Cajamarquilla. The great
irrigation channels in the Valley ended in large Lima settlements, and probably the channels and
the pyramids were built at the same time (MacNeish et al. 1975:52).
In Period 12 (AD 650-850) the Wari Empire spread through the Peruvian coast and highlands.
Ceramics of this time in the Rimac Valley belong to the Pachacamac style, with the best
35
specimens coming from Cajamaraquilla, and Vista Alegre. Apparently, during this period the
Oracle of Pachacamac, once joined with the Wari Empire, began to establish subsidiary oracles in
other regions (MacNeish et al. 1975:59).
In Period 13 (AD 850-1425), with the collapse of the Wari Empire, some coastal areas suffered
depopulation and economic depression, emerging regional States in various regions. In the Rimac
valley between A.D. 850 and 1050, there is a single pottery style called, among other names,
Epigonal or Three-color Geometric, mostly known from tombs excavated in Pachacamac, Ancon
and Chancay. They called it the "Chillon" style and divided it into three chronological phases
(MacNeish et al. 1975:62).
In the Period 14 (ca. AD 1425 1534) the volume of rainfall across the Central Andes
apparently decreased, so areas densely populated and marginal agricultural lands were abandoned,
as well pressure on food resources probably led some groups to move and take over agricultural
fields and water sources in areas adjacent to where they were settled. One of these groups, the
Incas, established an empire that covered most of the Central Andes (MacNeish et al. 1975:68). In
the Central Coast by AD 1425, a unique local pottery style was used, a style that had its
antecedents in the ceramics from the Rimac-Lurin region during the previous period. This could
reflect the increase in the importance of the Oracle of Pachacamac in the region. The Incas
introduced several changes in settlement patterns. The settlements were located along the edges of
the valleys or on low slopes and isolated hills. Ancient villages were abandoned and new ones
were built over old structures or natural mounds (MacNeish et al. 1975:71-72).
During the 1970's ethnohistorical studies about the Central Coast had a very important
breakthrough due to the investigations made by María Rostworowski based on her study of
36
Colonial Period documents. She argued that, by the arrival of the Europeans, the lower valleys of
Rímac and Lurín rivers were part of a single polity called Ichma, with its main settlement in
Pachacamac (Rostworowski 1972). She didn't find any documentary evidence of the existence of
Aymara tribes called Huallas and Huanchos in Lima. For that reason, she considered that if there
was an invasion of highlanders into the valleys of the Central Coast, this should rather be by the
Yauyos, because there is documentary information about their raids along the high parts of the
valleys of Lima (Rostworowski 1978). Ichma was organized in minor polities, each one with its
own lands, peoples and chiefs and with its territories distributed around the main irrigation
channels. Rostworowski established the existence of the following polities in the Rimac Valley:
Ate or Lati around the Ate channel, Sulco or Surco around the Surco channel, Amancaes in the
north side of the valley, Huatca, around the Huatica channel, Lima around La Magdalena channel,
Maranga around the Maranga channel, Guala located along the channel of La Legua and maybe a
single kingdom with Maranga but divided in two halves, and Callao in the area of the port
(Rostworowski 1978:45-107).
In 1982 the construction of a new National Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, was
planned inside the Park of the Legends Zoo in the middle of the archaeological group of Maranga.
Some archaeological excavations were made in the area designated for the new buildings. Modern
irrigation channels were found next to “Huaca Cruz Blanca”, and close to “Huaca 38” various
Pre-colonial channels were found, associated with two human burials, one of them secondary and
deposited inside a pot of the Early Intermediate Period and probably coeval with the channel
(Pinilla 1982). Some excavations were made in a main channel located North of Huaca Cruz
Blanca. There were two overlapping channels following the same course. Several burials
deposited on both sides of the channels were found in association with ceramics of the Early
37
Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Middle Horizon Period. Another channel was in use
during the Late Intermediate Period because there were late sherds in association (Shady et al.
1982; Pinilla 1983).
In 1987 the architect José Canziani mapped Maranga using 1944 aerial photographs and
descriptions of Middendorf, describing the buildings and, in particular the Great Walled
Enclosure which he called "Maranga Chayavilca" after the chieftain of Maranga in the 16th
century. Canziani considers that the archaeological complex is 25° NE, an alignment that is
perfectly perpendicular with the coast located 2 km southwest of Maranga. The large mounds
were not isolated but surrounded by residential or administrative structures, as demonstrated by
findings of rooms with small mud-brick walls between the huacas 20 and 31 (Canziani 1987).
The archaeological sites of the area of investigation were also described in a general way in the
inventories of archaeological monuments of Metropolitan Lima (Milla 1974; Ravines 1985;
Williams et al. 1989).
Idilio Santillana in 1988 made a report about the archaeological mounds located inside the
Campus of San Marcos University using aerial photographs of 1944. He identified the existence
of 11 archaeological sites; most of them now disappeared with the construction of the campus of
the University in the 1950's. Since 1987 the University's School of Archaeology conducted
excavations in huacas 11 (around the Faculty of Social Sciences building), 9 (close to the Faculty
of Biological Sciences) and 7 (near the University Gym) finding several construction stages
belonging to the late phases of the Lima sequence (Silva et al. 1993; Jaime 1999). The ceramic
artifacts recovered from Sector 9 were analyzed for this thesis.
38
Bazán (1990) analyzed the term Huancho, showing that it has no support in Colonial Period
documents and should be rejected from archaeological terminology. Instead of Huancho he
proposed the name “Ichma”, bcause it has been fully identified in the Colonial Period
information. According to Bazán, there were two pottery styles in the Rimac Valley in late
periods, the “Ichma” and the “Ichma fitomorph” styles, which were coeval. The Ichma style was
divided into three phases: Initial Ichma, which would appear to be associated with the Three-color
geometric style" (Middle Horizon epochs 3 and 4), Middle Ichma (Late Intermediate Period) and
Late Ichma (Late Horizon Period) with various pottery types in each phase (Bazán 1990, 1992).
The Ichma style expanded through the low valleys of the Rímac and Lurín rivers, although Ichma
specimens were found as well in the Chillón and Mala valleys. Ichma was then a local
development that had its antecedents in the local styles of the Middle Horizon Period and was not
a pottery style that came from the highlands (Bazán 1990).
Shimada et al. (1991), argued that Maranga was abandoned towards the end of the Early
Intermediate Period (Lima Phase 8), occurring at the same time as an unprecedented rapid
concentration of population in Cajamarquilla, located far inland. This fact is correlated with other
population displacements in the Central Andes, because something similar occurred in the Moche
River Valley: the abandonment of the huacas of the Sun and the Moon during Moche Phase IV
and the transfer of the main settlement inland to Galindo. Similar situations have occurred in the
Valley of Chicama, Lambayeque, Lurín and Nazca. According to the authors, this would be due to
a major drought which affected the Central Andes during the Sixth Century A.D., the evidence of
which comes from analyses ice cores from the Quelccaya Glacier in Cusco (Shimada et al 1991).
Narváez (2006b) criticized this approach, because it has contradictions with the archaeological
record. In fact, the middle part of the Rimac Valley had been densely occupied at least since the
39
Initial Period (Silva et al. 1997; Palacios 1989). It is also false that there had been an
abandonment of Maranga and a transfer of population to the Middle Valley. Archaeological
artifacts from epochs 1 and 2 of the Middle Horizon Period had been reported in Maranga
associated with architectural renovations (Kroeber 1954; Jijón 1949; Alarcon 1971). In regard to
Cajamarquilla, the authors did not take into consideration the archaeological materials published
by the Italian Archaeological Mission, or Patterson’s ideas about the site, indicating that the main
architectural expansion in Cajamarquilla was during the Late Intermediate Period and not during
the Middle Horizon Period (Sestieri 1964; Patterson 1966).
Between 1993 and 1994 the San Marcos Stadium, which had been built in the 1940s, over the
east side of Huaca Concha, was remodeled, which implied new destruction of the archaeological
pyramid. A group of students from the School of Archaeology of the University did a very quick
rescue of some Ychsma burials discovered in the diggings. However, there is no report of this
work and the recovered artifacts were deposited in the School of archaeology facilities. Gori
Echevarría, one of the students who participated in the work, published an article that provides
important information about the findings. The construction company made two large holes in the
highest part of Huaca Concha, which were called “north hole” and “south hole”. In the “north
hole” appeared walls made of little mud-bricks, one of them painted in yellow on both sides. The
associated floor also had yellow paint. 5 human burials were found in the South Hole. Three of
them put into boxes made of reeds and textiles, and the other two simple burials with the corpses
placed in flexed position with pottery vessels as funerary offerings (Echevarría 1995, 2004). The
recovered pottery from Huaca Concha was analyzed for this thesis.
In 1998 Narváez elaborated a photogrammetric analysis of Makatampu using aerial photos
from 1944, noticing morphological similarity between one of the pyramids of this site with Huaca
40
Middendorf of Maranga, and suggesting that the site was occupied by the Lima culture during the
Early Intermediate Period and reused as a cemetery in the Late Intermediate Period (Narváez
1998).
Since 1999 new archaeological excavations were made in the Aramburu Huaca (Huaca San
Marcos) by archaeologists from the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of San Marcos
University. Several construction phases, the oldest with small cubic mud-bricks identified as
"technique D”, were found on the Southern Slope of the Huaca from the Early Intermediate
Period. The following phases were identified in the same way as Alarcón in 1971: C, B and A.
Technique C correspond to structures made with cuboid small mud-bricks associated with pottery
from the Late phases of the Lima style sequence and Nieveria Style (Middle Horizon Period
Epoch 1). Technique B is identified by construction with reused small mud-bricks. In this stage
rammed earth walls and big mud-bricks were used, although to a lesser extent. In a passage that is
associated with this architectural technique an architectural fill was found composed of small
mud-bricks and garbage in association with Lima, Wari and Nievería pottery styles, a quipu and
two engraved bottle gourds of the Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period (Narváez 2000; Shady et
al. 2000). The last phase, associated with the "technique A", characterized by the reutilization of
Lima small mud-bricks disposed in different positions with abundant mud as mortar, was found in
association with the late pottery styles of the Valley. This phase consists of very simple structures
and was detected especially in the Northwest corner of the pyramid. Also, from this period, a
cemetery was found the Platform 6 (Narváez 1999; 2000).
Julio C. Tello left an archive with reports, photos, maps and drawings of several sites in the
Valley of Lima that were made during the 1930’s and 1940’s and deposited in the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology at San Marcos University. However, such information was not
41
published until 1999. Tello said that there was an ancient nation that he called “Limak” on the left
side of the Rimac Valley with two large cities that he called "Watika-Marka" and "Walla-Marka".
Waika-Marka comprised Maranga the "city of Huatica", Mateo Salado (which he also named
"Cinco Cerritos"), Wantille and Makat-Tampu. Wallamarka was located in the south-central part
of the valley and comprises other archaeological sites as Limatambo and Pucllana (Tello 1999:27-
28).
Another site investigated in recent years is “Huaca 20” in Maranga, located inside the Campus
of the Catholic University. The excavations revealed several phases of occupation that correspond
to the Early Intermediate and Middle Horizon periods. Excavations revealed domestic
occupations, irrigation channels, a possible area for pottery production and Lima/Nieveria burials
(Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000, 2010; Mac Kay 2007, 2011; Olivera 2009; Pierce 2008).
Vallejo (2004) established a sequence of the Ychsma pottery style, which replaced Bazán’s
sequence. Based on excavations carried out in tombs and garbage dumps in Armatambo, Vallejo
proposed the following sequence: Early Ychsma, with two sub-phases: A and B, Middle Ychsma
also with two sub-phases A and B and finally the Late Ychsma, also with two phases A and B.
Late Ychsma B had Inca influence. and coexisted with Imperial Inca Cuzco, local Regional Inca
and the Chimú-Inca styles (Vallejo 2004; Díaz and Vallejo 2004).Vallejo has pointed out that
certain vessels that Bazan considered Three-color Geometric actually belong to Middle Ychsma
A phase, and that is why Bazan’s sequence is wrong (Vallejo 2004:614). He also pointed out that
there is no "Ichma Phytomorphic" style and that the vessels identified by Bazan as belonging to
this style are in fact Late Ychsma. He pointed out that the Ychma style was disseminated through
the valleys of the Rímac, Lurín, Chilca and San Lorenzo Island. During the Inca Empire, this
pottery also existed in Ancon and in some sites in the highlands of Lima such as Nieve-Nieve in
42
the upper part of Lurín Valley (Vallejo 2004:597-598). Ychsma Style should have its antecedents
in the Huaura style from the Middle Horizon Period Epoch 4 (Vallejo 2004).
In recent years several sites located inside the “Park of the Legends” Zoo, including “Huaca
San Miguel”, “Wall 35E”, and “Huaca 46”, were excavated. Although the full results of such
works have not been yet published, there are some papers where the most important results are
discussed. Many construction phases were found in those buildings belonging to the Late
Intermediate and Late Horizon periods (Carrion and Espinoza 2007a, 2007b).
In 2008, Bazán presented a study about ceramics of his “Initial Ichma” phase from the
Macatampu collection deposited in the National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and
History. The Ichma initial Phase I (Epoch 4 of the Middle Horizon Period) is characterized in
Makatampu by funerary bundles with a wooden false head. Sometimes the false heads were only
faces painted over the external textile of the funerary bundles with noses made of wood or canes
(Bazán 2008:12). In association with one of them there is a vessel with the bottom decorated by
stamping that Bazán estimates corresponding to the Middle Horizon epochs 3 or 4, similar to
Pativilca or Paramonga styles (Bazán 2008:12).
Other vessels have cup-shaped necks, similar to the “Cuculi” style from Chilca valley which
could belong to the Initial Ichma II. Bazan pointed out that Three-color Geometric vessels
appeared associated with Initial Ichma II in funerary contexts from the first three epochs of the
Late Intermediate Period (Bazán 2008:15). Within the Macatampu collection there are also silver
cups with human faces shape, dishes and masks also in silver that could be the Initial Ichma II
(Bazán 2008:18). The Initial Ichma pottery was found in the Rímac Valley in the following sites:
Huaca Santa Catalina, Huaca Pan de Azucar (Huallamarca) and Huaca “La Universidad”. In Lurin
River valley it was found at Pachacamac and at several sites in the Chilca River Valley, where it
43
received the name “Cuculi”. Apparently, during this time large buildings were not constructed on
the Central Coast (Bazán 2008:20).
G. Chauca analyzed part of the archaeological pottery recovered at the summit of Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu excavated between 1999 and 2001. He defined the existence of two construction
phases; the first consisted of two rooms connected by narrow passageways. The second phase
consisted of the destruction of one of the rooms and the construction of a new room and two
passages. The new room was modified seven times adding sidewalks and other rooms. In those
rooms restricted ceremonies could have been performed (Chauca 2009:70). In the architectural
fills that covered the last constructions a concentration of 421 decorated sherds from at least 32
vessels was found, belonging to the Middle Horizon Period Epoch 2. The vessels are bowls,
bottles and a bowl with pedestal. The fact that they are incomplete suggests that they were broken
in another place and moved to that deposit. This pottery was assigned to Pachacamac (phases A
and B), Ica-Pachacamac, and Vinaque styles (Chauca 2009).
Huaca Huantille was excavated in 2007. Several construction phases corresponding to the Late
Intermediate Period were found, as well as intrusive human burials from the Late Horizon Period
(Guillen 2010).
Espinoza made an analysis of the archaeological group of Maranga located inside the “Park of
the Legends” Zoo, establishing a typology of construction materials and architectural units. He
argued about the existence of two types of rammed earth walls: one with regular quadrilateral
(trapezoids and rectangles) sections usually arranged in rows along the walls, and the other with
irregular quadrilateral sections with many sides and few horizontal alignments. The rammed earth
walls are the most important construction elements in Maranga during later periods, although
44
mud-bricks were used secondarily in walls, stairways and platforms. In some cases small walls
made with canes embedded vertically in the ground and attached with cords were used to delimit
spaces inside the buildings. Construction fills were composed of earth, clods and boulders. When
the fills were put in very large structures, they were placed in grids formed by walls of earth
clods, boulders or reused Lima small mud-bricks. There were also murals and friezes in some of
the buildings, although they are very scarce, as well as openings and niches in the walls. He
identified three types of walls: interior walls, front-walls and buttress-walls, some with staggered
tops (Espinoza 2012).
Espinoza said that there are two large architectural sections in this site: the Walled Sector (the
“Great Enclosure”) and an Extramural Sector with the huacas “Tres Palos”, “San Miguel” and
“Cruz Blanca”. He hypothesized, that during the Late Intermediate Period the Extramural Sector
was associated with elites that were politically autonomous from Pachacamac but shared common
cultural traits. During the Late Horizon, Huaca “La Palma” was built inside the Walled Sector,
while Huaca “Tres Palos” was sealed and transformed into a “tambo”. Maranga came under
Pachacamac dominion, and the Cusquenians exercised control over Maranga through Pachacamac
(Espinoza 2010).
Luis Lumbreras made a review of Jijón y Caamaño’s work in Maranga, and also presented
some information about the works in Huaca Aramburu during the 1960’s. Lumbreras said that the
book of Jijón y Caamaño is very complex and difficult to understand, although it is superior to the
reports of his contemporary Alfred Kroeber, because he tried to identify the natural stratigraphy of
the site, differentiating layers of construction fill, garbage, floors and walls in contrast to Kroeber
who excavated only by arbitrary levels. Lumbreras proposed that Maranga was the major
settlement of a theocratic archaic state during the Early Intermediate Period during the Fourth and
45
Fifth centuries AD. From the Fifth or the beginning of the Sixth centuries it grew into a
centralized State that exercised control over the lower and middle sections of the Rimac, Lurín,
and Chillon river valleys and the Bay of Ancón. The Wari invasion, one or two centuries later,
caused the disappearance of this theocratic order, transforming it into a political-military polity
that moved its main settlement to Cajamarquilla and Pachacamac during the Ninth and Eleventh
centuries, and turning Maranga into an abandoned settlement. When the Wari Empire collapsed,
the power of Pachacamac decreased, although the settlement was not abandoned. With the Inca
conquest Pachacamac and Maranga again acquired importance (Lumbreras 2011).
Between the years 2009 and 2010 Huaca Huantinamarca was excavated and several
construction phases were defined. The construction took place during the Late Intermediate and
Late Horizon periods and some burials from the Late Horizon Ychsma were also found in the site
(Villacorta 2010).
For her master’s thesis María Inés Barreto analyzed some human sacrifices attributed to the
Lima culture in at the huacas Pucllana and Aramburu (Huaca San Marcos). In Huaca Aramburu,
two sacrifices were found at Platform 9, in one of the highest parts of the pyramid. The author
argued that they are human sacrifices by throat cutting and buried at a time of reconstruction of
the building during Lima times (Barreto 2012:222). But this sector of the pyramid has on the
surface architecture with typical features of the Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period, and the
sacrifices were at the surface. This indicates that the burials could be much later than the author
thinks.
Archaeological investigations made in the valleys of La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua
date back to the Nineteenth Century with travelers who left descriptions of the main
46
archaeological sites. From the Twentieth Century, with the emergence of professional
archaeology, there has been an effort to establish the occupation sequence, cultures, and the
characteristics and activities that were carried out on the archaeological settlements located in this
area. However, the vast destruction of archaeological sites, the lack of analysis of the recovered
archaeological artifacts, as well as the lack of publications and the disappearance of
archaeological reports have been an obstacle to achieve these objectives.
So far, it is known that the oldest occupations in the area of investigation belongs to the
periods called Initial/Early Horizon, also known as "Formative", with small mounds with
constructions made of boulders or spherical mud-bricks with a ceramic that is associated with the
Ancon style that was at one time strongly influenced by Chavín culture from the Northern
highlands. While in other parts of the Central Coast there are large U-shaped pyramidal buildings,
in the research area those are absent. During the next period, called "Early Intermediate Period" or
"Regional Developments Epoch", the best-known culture is Lima, also known as “Proto-Lima”,
“Playa Grande” or “Maranga”. It is characterized by the presence of large pyramidal structures
made of small mud-bricks as in the complex of pyramids of Maranga and Makatampu. The
identification of the type of society that Lima was varies, from those who think that it was a
chiefdom or those who believe that was a state. The following period, the Middle Horizon, is
corresponding to the Wari culture. The presence of this culture in the area of investigation became
problematic because it was thought that it might be a time of abandonment of the area with a
concentration of population in the middle part of the Rimac Valley in the big site of
Cajamarquilla. But Wari artifacts have been reported from Maranga associated to a specific type
of architecture. The debate also reaches the true nature of the Wari phenomenon oscillating
between those who believe that it was an Empire with its core place in Wari-Ayacucho, to those
47
who think that it was a time of independent regional centers that maintained close cultural contact
through commercial trade. The most important pottery styles from this period are Nieveria and
Pachacamac. During the “Late intermediate Period”, also known as "Regional States Epoch",
corresponds to the Ychsma culture, also known in the past as "Huancho" or "Ichma". The
architecture of this period is characterized by large walls of rammed earth and pyramidal
structures of different sizes, as well as large fenced areas and walled roads. The Inca expansion,
which occurred during the Late Horizon Period in the second half of the 15th century, reoccupied
and reconstructs the old Ychsma buildings.
Ethnohistorical investigation, based on the analysis of colonial documents, established the
existence, at the time of the Conquest, of polities located around the main irrigation channels:
Lima, in the channel of La Magdalena, Maranga, around the channel of the same name, and
Guala, around the channel of La Legua. These chieftains were integrated, with others located in
the valleys of the Rímac and Lurín rivers, into the Ychsma Chieftain, which had its main
settlement in Pachacamac, the big site situated in the Lurín River Valley.
48
Chapter 4
The Research
4.1 Theoretical Framework:
The objective of this thesis is to understand what type of societies existed in the valleys of La
Magdalena, La Legua, and Maranga channels during Pre-colonial times through the establishment
of the occupational sequence of the area and the pattern of settlement for each identified period.
Taking into consideration that societies of Pre-colonial Peru are usually characterized as
"chiefdoms", "states", "civilizations" or "empires", the following discussion will define these
terms and how they have been applied by Cultural Neoevolutionism in the Peruvian Case. There
are also a discussion about alternative models for the description of those societies and theoretical
explanations about the emergence of social complexity in the Central Andean area.
Band societies, considered the oldest, were called by Morton Fried "egalitarian" The members
of these societies are commonly dedicated to hunting and gathering, with no differences of rank or
authority transmitted by inheritance. The differences are primarily based on age, experience,
ability or charisma, and the division of labor is centered on age and gender (Flannery 1995:6).
With the emergence of agriculture larger bands and sedentary settlements were generated. This
gave rise to "hierarchical societies", "ranked societies" or "tribes" (Fried 1967). Ranking appears
when there are fewer positions of valued status than people able to cover them (Fried1967:52). A
“ranked society” has the means to limit the access of members to positions of status that can only
be obtained on the basis of sex, age or personal attributes. It is characteristic of "ranked societies"
that all their members work according to their age and sex. Rank does not provide tasks that can
grant to its possessors large social differences. In fact, those who possess some special range must
49
work as much as any other member of the community. Craftsmen do not get benefits more than
transitory prestige without political power derived from their specialization (Fried 1967:114-115).
Some ambitious individuals, ethnographically identified as "Big Men", can occupy the top of the
hierarchy. These personages can host feasts, participate in exchange networks of sumptuary
goods, collect valuable items, and even direct attacks on other villages. However, their
descendants will not inherit their privileges or prestige (Flannery 1995:6). In this kind of society,
villages can exist as autonomous social systems, but some of them are articulated with each other
through networks of cooperation and marriage (Fried 1967:118-119).
"Stratified societies" are those with social differences based on economic inequality, and where
adult members have different access to basic resources to support life, such as water and food, or
the means to produce them like land and raw materials (Fried 1967:118). "Chiefdoms" are
stratified societies where paramount leaders, in a main village, control other villages of less power
(Flannery 1995:7).
Earle (1978) defined two main kinds of chiefdoms: simple and complex. Simple chiefdoms
are those who have one main village as the main level of control over some less important
villages. Complex chiefdoms have more territory and population and have two levels of control
above the less important villages in the settlement hierarchy.
Chiefdoms have different lineages that are graded according to their prestige. There is always a
senior or major lineage that is controlled by the chief who also controls all the society. The
prestige and rank between lineages and people are based on how close they are related to the chief
(Flannery 1995:12). Another important chiefdom characteristic is that the chiefs and their closest
relatives are differentiated from the lower members of the society by the use of sumptuary objects
made in gold, silver, sea shells, precious stones, feathers and furs imported from distant regions,
50
as well as the tradition of being carried in litters by servants (Flannery 1995:7). Hence, burials of
main personages have such luxury objects (Flannery 1995:14).
A state “…is a collection of specialized institutions and agencies, some formal and other
informal that maintains an order of stratification” (Fried 1967:235). States are generated by the
need to maintain the social stratification order and the access rights to basic resources. One way of
doing this is generating doctrines which establish that this order is good and inevitable. But a
repressive apparatus is also necessary to maintain control over those who may question this
doctrine, as well as specialized organizations such as bureaucratic institutions, army and police
(Fried 1967:230-231).
Because the population must be controlled, the state has mechanisms that serve to identify its
members. This usually is done by establishing national boundaries, where state membership is
obtained via birth or kinship, which also involves the existence of several categories of
citizenship. For administrative reasons, states are concerned about the number of members, so a
census must be applied. This is linked to another important feature of states, which is the
application of taxation to their citizens as well as the creation of specialized bureaucratic
organisms in charge of tax collection and administration since the activities of the state must be
subsidized (Fried 1967:236). The state must also have record keepers, communicators and many
other officials who should be specialists excluded from the daily tasks of food production (Fried
1967:236-237, 240)
Many of these archaic states were kingdoms, and were divided into two strata with no
intermarriage. At the top of society are the nobles who obtained this position by inheritance and
from where the ruler usually comes. Below this layer are citizens or "commoners", who may
ascend socially if they are wealthy merchants or craftsmen, or stand out in the military or
51
bureaucratic service. However, commoners can also be servants without lands who work in the
fields of more wealthy families or slaves if they were captured in wars (Flannery 1995-7-8).
There are several features that allow archaeologists to detect the presence of archaic states. The
rulers are kings or queens who live in palaces whose remains can be recovered. They have
spectacular tombs, sometimes with sacrificed servants, women and animals (Flannery 1995:16-
17), although because wealthy burials are also present in chiefdoms, it is necessary to take into
consideration other characteristics, as settlement pattern, in order to establish the existence of state
that has a hierarchy of at least four levels (Flannery 1995:46, 1998:46). At the top is the city,
below it several towns and many villages, and in the lower level there are smaller villages. Only
the three superiors, city, village and large villages, have administrative functions (Flannery
1995:17-18).
A particular type of state is the “empire” that emerges as a state grows and incorporates within
its borders people with different languages from different cultures or ethnic groups (Flannery
1995-8-9). Archaic empires have some common characteristics: they expanded very fast usually
by military conquest, they did not control directly all the regions under their domain because they
could manipulate the local elites in order to fulfill the administrative necessities of the empire,
paid especial attention to economic interests, and lasted only for a very short time, usually few
generations (Schreiber 1992:3-4).
Archaic empires usually had a discontinuous control of their vast territories. Some regions
could be directly controlled but others are ruled by alliances with local elites. And that is why
“…the resulting system may be better thought as a mosaic of different levels of control”
(Schreiber 1992:5). This is also a consequence of the ecological diversity of the empires because
they expanded over vast regions (Schreiber 1992:5).
52
It is characteristic that archaic empires developed ideologies that support their expansion.
Imperial elites considered themselves as civilizing of the world bringing benefits to other people
that they considered barbarous. For that reason, commonly there are religious and political
symbols expressed in several media that expanded through the territory of the empire (Schreiber
1992:7).
Direct control is exerted by the empire when the conquered local political organization is
dismantled and is substituted by a new set of administrators and rulers in direct allegiance to the
imperial elites. But this is costly and usually the empire tries to avoid it, and it usually happens
only when conquered groups are hostile towards the imperial dominion. In that case local rulers
and all the political hierarchy could be removed and replaced by imperial officials. On the other
hand, societies that already have a bureaucratic hierarchy could be integrated into a wide imperial
hierarchy, but regions that lack it need a complete reorganization (Schreiber 1992:14-17).
Trigger points out that “early civilizations” can be defined as:
“…the earliest and simplest forms of societies in which the basic principle governing
social divisions was not kinship but a hierarchy of social division that cut horizontally
across societies. A tiny ruling group that used coercive powers to augment its
authority was sustained by agricultural surpluses and labour systematically
appropriated from a much larger number of agricultural producers. Full-time
specialists (artisans, bureaucrats, soldiers, retainers) also supported and served the
ruling group and the government apparatus it controlled. Rulers cultivated a luxurious
style of life that distinguished them from the ruled” (Trigger 2003:44-45).
Trigger argues that there is no civilization without urban centers or cities that are settlements
where specialized functions are performed in relation to a broader hinterland. In early civilizations
53
there are large cities that were the capitals of city-states. Other cities were provincial
administrative centers of states that control certain territory. Other places are towns or villages
that were below the main cities (Trigger 2003:120). Cities are places where the upper classes live,
along with people who do not produce food and are the principal places for “…political and
administrative activities, specialized craft production, marketing, long-distance trade, higher
education, artistic and cultural achievements, conspicuous display, court life, and religious
rituals” (Trigger 2003:121).
Norman Yoffee (2006:16-17) argues that the concept of “Social Complexity” has been used by
the archaeologist who found it very difficult to determine if a society is a state or a chiefdom
because both societies have several traits in common. The evolutionist cultural model in
archaeology was developed using anthropological concepts and ethnographic data, because some
archaeologists thought that our “contemporary ancestors” were expressions of early stages in
cultural development. There is a kind of stepladder model with bands becoming tribes, tribes
becoming chiefdoms, and chiefdoms becoming states. This model was widely used because it
provided archaeologists with ethnographic analogies useful to interpret the past (Yoffee 2006:18-
19). Yoffee does not reject the idea of social evolution. He argues that evolution occurred in
human society and it is an appropriate concept to study social change. For example, large urban
settlements emerged from small villages, and that can be explained with evolutionary concepts
(Yoffee 2006:5). The social evolutionary theory has many myths that became popular in
archaeological investigations, like:
“(1) the earliest states were basically all the same kind of thing (whereas bands,
tribes, and chiefdoms all varied within their types considerably); (2) ancient states
were totalitarian regimes, ruled by despots who monopolized the flow of goods,
54
services, and information and imposed “true” law and order on their powerless
citizens; (3) the earliest states enclosed large regions and were territorially
integrated; (4) typologies should and can be devised in order to measure societies in a
ladder of progressiveness; (5) prehistoric representatives of these social types can be
correlated, by analogy, with modern societies reported by ethnographers; and (6)
structural changes in political and economic systems were the engines for, and are
hence necessary and sufficient conditions that explain, the evolution of the earliest
states” (Yoffee 2006:5-6).
Neo-evolutionist theory cannot explain why growing social and economic differentiation
developed in different ways through time. This is a very important issue, which Neo- evolutionists
archaeologists do not take into consideration because they spend much time trying to determine if
a complex society is a state or a chiefdom (Yoffee 2006:41). Instead of that, Yoffee argues that it
is necessary to have new rules of social evolutionary theory with concepts that are analytical
constructs, not classificatory dogmas. It is necessary to explain how and why there is an enormous
variety in the development of the earliest cities, states and civilizations (Yoffee 2006:181). The
new rules of social evolutionary theory must also address how and why the earliest states varied
enormously, or why some societies did not develop into states. Each early society needs to be
understood in its own terms, and not as an expression of variability among chiefdom or state, or
steps from chiefdoms to states (Yoffee 2006:181). “Different evolutionary trajectories can exist
and not all known human societies fall on the progressive steps of a social evolutionary ladder”
(Yoffee 1993:71-72).
Discontents among scholars about categories of cultural evolutionism like, band, tribe,
chiefdom, and state and about the ideas of hierarchy, led them to the search of other models like
heterarchy that is defined as the: “…the relation of elements to one another when they are
55
unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways”
(Crumley 1995:2). This idea seems to be useful when it is applied to analyze power relations or
even settlement patterns in specific societies because it is based on the idea that societies not only
could be organized hierarchically, but there are several elements that could be arranged in several
ways through time. For instance “… governmental hierarchies, like peer polities, can move over
time to hierarchies and vice versa… without invoking the rhetoric of collapse” (Crumley 1995:4).
In the case of Peruvian archaeology, as will be discussed in Chapter 8, the heterarchy model has
been recently applied as a way to explain the existence of peer monumental sites during the Initial
and Early Horizon periods in the Central Coast without the existence of a state (Burger and
Salazar 2008).
Quilter and Koons (2012) analyzing the Moche society from the Peruvian North Coast, also
questioned the cultural neo-evolutionary model that it was a state that expended through military
conquest through a vast territory. Actually, some assumptions about this society have been
inexact, like the existence of a single Moche pottery and architectonic style in all its territory, the
expansion of standardized construction techniques produced by labor tax, and the fact that Moche
traits appeared rapidly in the “provinces” (Quilter and Koons 2012:132-133). It is not important
anymore to try to define Moche as a state or not because:
“…someone can always argue that it was by crafting a definition [of state] that will
fit the data. We believe that a close examination of how economic and political power
was distributed, marshalled, and employed within spatiotemporal boundaries will lead
to a richer understanding of the Moche and other archaeological cultures (Quilter and
Koons 2012:136).
56
It should be more productive to analyze how Andean societies were organized in ranked
moieties based on kin groups that combined into larger political units as was registered in Early
Colonial Period documents than try to fit the ancient Andean societies into the state model
(Quilter and Koons 2012:137).
The emergence of social complexity, especially states, in the Andean coastal area has been a
matter of wide discussion. Historian Karl Wittfogel (1956, 1959) postulated the “Irrigation
Theory” to explain the emergence of complex societies in alluvial arid plains located close to
great rivers. The main argument for this theoretical explanation is that the only way to organize
the construction and the maintenance of the irrigation channels was through the existence of elites
with a centralized authority. In time those elites gain power and prestige generating a state level
society. He called such societies “Oriental Despotism” and the best examples occurred in
Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and Pakistan, China and the Incas at different times. Several scholars,
including Steward (1956, 1970), Kosok (1965), and Netherly (1984) took his ideas and applied
them to the Peruvian coastal case.
Julian Steward was one of the first to establish Irrigation farming as the main factor in a line of
evolution that led to civilization. Following Wittfogel’s hypothesis, Julian Steward, founder of the
“multilinear evolution” school, thought that cultures are adaptive systems that developed in
similar lines of evolution in similar environments. In the case of some arid environments, it was
necessary to construct irrigation systems to maintain the agriculture and sustain the population.
That led to the appearance of centralized controls with priests, but with more population and
conflict inside the states, military leaders gained power and authority. This caused new cycles of
economic development that were followed by new conflicts (Steward 1956:75).
57
Irrigation theory applied to the Peruvian case has been criticized since it was proposed. Rowe
argued, in the case of the Ica River Valley in the Peruvian South Coast that:
"…large cities appear first and major irrigation canals were only built later. It would
be difficult to argue that there was any relationship between irrigation and the
development of cities in the area, unless it was that the growth of cities produced a
pressure on the land which was met by irrigation projects on an unprecedented scale”
(Rowe 1963:20).
Lanning stated that:
"we cannot, therefore, say that irrigation led to the centralization of authority but
rather that, once authority was centralized, it became possible to build and maintain
irrigation systems. Irrigation was thus a product of civilization, not a cause of it"
(Lanning 1967:181).
Mitchell argued about the importance of centralized organization prior to the existence of
irrigation systems as the main factor in the emergence of social complexity. He stated that: “…it
is not irrigation itself, but the centralized coordination of irrigation activities that has important
social consequences” (Mitchell 1973:533) and:
“…if there is centralized direction of irrigation activities in an arid or semiarid

environment, then there will be a corresponding increase in centralized political
power in other areas of social life. The extent of political power will vary directly with
the extent of the irrigation system and its importance to the total economy” (Mitchell
1973:534).
58
Mitchell (1976) made an ethnographic study about the irrigation systems in Quinua, a town
located in the highlands near Wari in Ayacucho. The community is divided in two sections:
Hanan Sayoc and Lurin Sayoc. In Hanan Sayoc such control has always been assumed by the
town political organization that is only responsible only for the maintenance of the system and the
distribution of water during the rainy season planting. At other times water is distributed
informally by those needing it. The water distribution for Lurin Sayoc was traditionally made by
certain political officials known as the Llahta Varayoc that are considered the owners of the
irrigation system of a particular section of the town and, with the elders, decided about its
distribution. In this case, the main political authorities of the town did not interfere, although they
are responsible to give the necessary materials in order to keep the system working (Mitchell
1976:35). In this case, the existence of despotic and centralized administration of a state was not
necessary, as was proposed in the Wittfogel-Steward hypothesis. It is the planting cycle that
determines the division and distribution of water, so that higher fields receive water first, but all
the branching channels ensure the irrigation of the lands located at all the altitude sections of the
community (Mitchell 1976:35). In other less critical times of the year the water is distributed
informally. It is interesting to notice that although water is frequently stolen, there are no
sanctions, and it is the responsibility of each farmer to irrigate their lands and prevent its theft
(Mitchell 1976:39). Based on this particular situation, Mitchell arrives to a very important
conclusion:
“The fact that irrigation water is distributed only at certain times by political
authorities and that water is frequently stolen, is of interest with respect to certain
controversies over the Wittfogel-Steward hypothesis. It has frequently been assumed
that irrigation itself causes despotic and centralized political control. The data from
59
Quinua do not support this conception. In Quinua, water is distributed primarily on
the basis of customary procedure” (Mitchell 1976:40).
In the case of the Wari state that developed in the same area, factors other than irrigation
should be responsible for the emergence of state-like control, like, for instance, trade between the
Amazon forest, the highlands and the desert coast or Carneiro’s hypothesis that involves
population increase in environmental circumscription that causes warfare (Mitchell 1976:40).
The Irrigation Theory was not the only idea developed to explain social complexity in Peru.
Other theories include the “Warfare Theory”, as noted by Mitchell above, that stated that the
origin of early states resulted from increasing external conflict or warfare, under specific
conditions. Carneiro ( 1970:734-36) argued that population increase within a geographically or
socially circumscribed area resulted in increasing competition for land, warfare leading to
subjugation of social groups, and eventual centralization of increasingly larger social groups,
including centralization of land control, and the emergence of the state.
4.2 Statement of the problem:
In the valley of the Rímac River in Prehispanic times, complex societies developed. They left
the evidence of their presence in numerous archaeological places distributed in the valley as well
as irrigation channels and reservoirs. María Rostworowski (1978), based on Colonial Period
documents of the XVI and XVII centuries, proposed that in the valley of Rímac the main
irrigation channels not only had economic importance but also political significance because they
defined seignories during the Late Horizon Period. Each seignory would be located around each
main channel and had the same name as the channel. Likewise, each seignory had its own lands,
lords (named “cacique” in early colonial times), main and secondary establishments and
60
population. For the case of the area comprising this investigation, Rostworowski outlined the
existence of the following “seignories”: Lima, for La Magdalena Channel, Guala for La Legua
Channel, and Maranga, for the Maranga Channel.
In spite of the importance of this approach, there has not been an effort to connect the
archaeological information with the ethnohistorical information of the Rímac valley that could
corroborate Rostworowski’s statement. Although there is abundant archaeological information
recovered from the area, the sequence of occupations and the settlement patterns for every period
in the area has not been fully reconstructed. The present investigation aims to address the
following questions:
1) What was the sequence of occupation in the valleys of La Magdalena and Maranga and La
Legua irrigation channels, from the Late Preceramic Period and to the Late Horizon Period?
2) What were the settlement patterns and irrigation systems in the valleys of La Magdalena and
Maranga and La Legua irrigation channels, from the Late Preceramic Period and to the Late
Horizon Period?
3) What were the territorial locations, internal divisions and organization of the “seignory”
located in the artificial valleys of La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua from which we have
ethnohistorical information?
4.3 Hypotheses:
1) During the Late Preceramic Period (3000 BC - 1800 BC) large populations didn't exist in the
area, neither were there big establishments as existed in other parts of the coast, nor were
irrigation systems associated with the channels.
61
2) During the Initial and Early Horizon periods (1800 B.C.-200 B.C.) small establishments existed
in the area. Maybe, the irrigation systems existed but in reduced scale. There weren’t U-shaped
mound complexes like those that existed in other parts of the valley, suggesting that this space
didn't have much importance.
3) During the first half of the Early Intermediate Period, associated with what is known as Topará
pottery Style (400 BC - 300 AD) there existed in the area only small establishments. There
weren’t big pyramidal constructions, nor expansive irrigation systems.
4) During the second half of the Early Intermediate Period, (200 AD - 500 AD), associated with
the first phases of the Lima style, there were in the area pyramidal constructions made with cubic
bricks, as at the archaeological complex of Maranga. Therefore, the irrigation system of the
Maranga Channel was already in operation. It is possible that other important complexes, such as
Makatampu associated with the channel of La Legua, had also begun to be built at this time.
5) During Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon (500 - 650 A.D.), the channels of Maranga and La
Legua had numerous establishments, with two big urban centres: Maranga, associated with the
channel of Maranga, and Makatampu, with the channel of La Legua. Maybe, the “seignories”
registered ethnohistorically for later times had begun to be defined at this time, one for Maranga
and another for La Legua. However, given the absence of big Lima establishments associated
with La Magdalena channel, this channel would not yet have been built, or it represented reduced
importance.
6) During Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period (650 A.D. - 750 A.D.), when the valley entered
in the Wari interaction sphere linked with Ayacucho, the North Coast and the South Coast,
Maranga was the most important center in the area.
62
7) During epochs 3 and 4 of the Middle Horizon Period (750 A.D. – 900 A.D.) given, so far, the
absence of discovered archaeological evidence, it is possible that there was a reduction of the
population in the zone or the population stopped occupying the Lima constructions and moved to
other places like the late section of the Maranga complex.
8) During the Late Intermediate Period (900 A.D. – 1476 A.D.), associated with the Ychsma style,
there were in the area two big urban establishments: Maranga and Makatampu. It is possible that
the archaeological complex of Mateo Salado had begun to be built at this time. Therefore, La
Magdalena Channel and the channel associated with Mateo Salado already existed by this time.
9) During the Late Horizon (1476 A.D. – 1532 A.D.), when the area was annexed to the
Tahuantinsuyu Empire, there were in the area three big urban establishments: Maranga,
Makatampu and Mateo Salado. Other groups of big constructions can be added, like the one that
existed in the Historical Centre of Lima, Huantille, associated with La Magdalena and Chacra
Puente near to La Legua Channel. At this time, three “seignories” existed in the area: Lima,
associated with La Magdalena Channel and Mateo Salado, Maranga, associated with the channel
of the same name and others, even some not identified, associated with the channel of La Legua
and Makatampu.
4.4 Research methodology:
The problem with the area of investigation is that the modern urban expansion of the city of Lima
destroyed the old irrigation systems, the cultivation lands and numerous archaeological places.
For that reason, the following methodology of work will be used:
Photogrammetric mapping of the area using aerial photos of 1943 and 1944 from the “Project
340” that was the first aerophotogrammetric flight over the Rimac River Valley made between
63
1943 and 1944 by the Peruvian Air Force. This flight is very important from the archaeological
point of view, because it registered archaeological places, many of which don't exist at the present
time, irrigation channels and agricultural fields, when the city began its expansion. However, this
method has some disadvantages that are necessary to keep in mind in order to execute a correct
interpretation of the information gathered through this technique:
a) The images that the pictures present are what existed in 1944, not what existed in the
archaeological times that are the subject of this study. Numerous archaeological places no longer
figured in the photos because they were destroyed with the expansion of the agricultural lands and
the modern urban establishments like Lima (Historical Centre), Magdalena, Magdalena del Mar
or Callao. However, it is necessary to take into consideration that the massive destructions of
archaeological places in the Rimac River Valley occurred with the expansion of the city in the
fifties
b) The archaeological places that are visible in the aerial photos in some cases are altered by the
Colonial and Republican occupation of the area. Therefore, the images that they present in the
aerial photo can be partial.
c) In many cases observing the aerial photos, it is impossible to know the occupational sequence
of a mound, their cultural associations or chronology. Many of the mounds are composed of many
construction phases, one over another. For example, a building of the Late Intermediate Period
could hide in its interior an old Lima building that is totally invisible, mainly if it was destroyed
without previous archaeological work.
d) Although the tendency was to expand the cultivation lands, demolishing the old constructions,
it cannot be disregarded completely that some small mounds visible in the aerial photos may be
Republican or Colonial, generated by the cleaning of agricultural fields, channels and reservoirs
64
or by the movement of soils for new constructions. Again, due to the lack of archaeological
information, it would be difficult to know accurately if a mound visible in the aerial picture is
Prehispanic or not.
e) Many of the irrigation channels and reservoirs that are observed in the aerial pictures may be
Colonial or Republican and not Prehispanic, due to the agricultural expansion of the area. Without
reliable archaeological information, it would be difficult to determine in some cases if certain
channels or reservoirs are Prehispanic or not only by observing the aerial pictures.
However, in spite of their limitations, the photogrammetric mapping of the study area
constitutes the best tool to know the quantity and distribution of archaeological places and their
relationship with the irrigation systems.
Review of current maps and satellite pictures: The area in study has very good maps whose
consultation will enrich the photogrammetric mapping. The existence of satellite pictures offered
gratuitously by Google Earth, will allow knowing, in an immediate and precise way, how many of
the archaeological places and irrigation systems visible in the aerial pictures of 1944 exist at the
present time and which do not.
Many of the archaeological places visible in the aerial pictures of the area were subjected to
archaeological investigation. For that reason, a lot of information exists in diverse publications.
The review of these publications will offer very important information about the occupational
sequence, chronology and cultural associations of those places. In some cases, many
archaeological places were dug without the results being published. Inquiries in some archives
(National Institute of Culture, Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and History of Peru) will
be done, with the purpose of finding reports, field diaries or pictures of those works.
65
Excavations made in some archaeological places of the area allowed recovery of a great
quantity of archaeological specimens, especially pottery, deposited in some museums. The review
of diagnostic specimens of these collections and their comparison with existent sequences will
allow a clear idea about the chronological position and cultural associations of certain
archaeological places. In this investigation, collections from the sites Huaca Huantille, Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa, Mateo Salado, Huaca Tres Palos, Huaca La Palma, Makatampu, Huaca
Concha, Huaca Aramburu, Huaca 9 and Huaca 21 were analyzed.
The study of diverse documentary sources of the Sexteenth-Ninteenth centuries allowed
recovery of important information about the location of archaeological places that don’t exist at
the present time, the original names of the lands and irrigation channels, information about
lineages, etc. Although the thesis doesn’t have an ethnohistorical focus, recovered information
from those sources contribute to the objectives of the investigation.
A superficial study of the archaeological sites that still exist at the present time in the area was
made with the objective to determine materials and construction techniques, morphology and
construction phases observable in cuts still exposed by modern works or old excavations.
5) Objectives:
1) To define the location and characteristics (general morphology, construction techniques, temporal
location and cultural association) of the archaeological places of the artificial old valleys of La
Legua, La Magdalena and Maranga.
2) To determine the location and characteristics of the irrigation systems (main and secondary
channels and reservoirs) in the old valleys of La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga.
66
3) To determine the occupation sequence in the area from the spread of agricultural production in the
valley in the Late Preceramic Period (3000 B.C.) until the end of the Late Horizon Period (1532
A.D.).
4) To determine the patterns of settlement corresponding to every period comprised in this
investigation.
5) To define the relationship between archaeological establishments and irrigation systems with the
“señoríos” linked to each main channel of irrigation whose existence was registered in Colonial
Period documents.
67
Table 4-1. Chronological variables, categories and indicators on the basis of pottery styles and
phases
Variables Categories Indicators
Late Ychsma B, Chancay and
Late Horizon Period Regional Inca pottery styles
Early, Middle and Late
Late Intermediate Period Ychsma and Chancay pottery
styles.
Chronology and Epochs 3 and 4 Three Color Geometric
Cultural Association Nieveria, Pachacamac y
Middle Epoch 2 Chakipampa pottery styles.
Horizon Period Epoch 1 Lima Phase 9 and Nieveria
pottery styles.
Early Epochs 5 - 8 Lima pottery style phases 1-8
Intermediate Epochs 1 - 4 Topara pottery style
Period
Initial and Early Horizon periods Ancon pottery style.
68
Table 4-2. Variables, categories and indicators for chronology on the basis of
architectural materials
Variables Categories Indicators
Rammed earth walls
Late Horizon Period classes A and B
Rammed earth walls
Late Intermediate Period class A
Epochs 3-4 ?
Middle Epoch 2 Small cuboid mud-
Horizon Period bricks (technique B)
Epoch 1 Small cuboid mud-
Chronology bricks (technique C)
Early Epochs 5 - 8 Small cubic mud-bricks
Intermediate (technique D)
Period
Epochs 1 - 4 ?
Small semi-spherical
Initial and Early Horizon periods mud-bricks
69
Table 4-3. Main pottery sequences in the Rimac River Valley
Years Periods Epochs Pottery style Phases

1532 Late Horizon Period Late B
1476 8 Late A
7 Middle B
6
Late 5 Ychsma Middle A
Intermediate 4
Period 3 Early B
2
Early A - Three-
1000 1 color Geometric
2B Wari (Pachacamac and Chakipampa),

Middle Horizon 2A Nieveria Derived
Period 1B
800 1A Lima 9 – Nieveria
8 7-8
650 7 6-7
6 Lima 3-4
Early 5 1-2
AD Intermediate 4
BC Period 3
2 Topara
400 1
70
Table 4-3. Main pottery sequences in the Rimac River Valley (continuation)
Years Periods Epochs Pottery style Phases

10 X - Topara
9
IX
8
Early Horizon 7 Ancon VIII
Period 6
VII
5
4 VI
3
V
2
1400 - 1200 1 IV
III
Initial Period Ancon II
2000 - 1800 I
71
CHAPTER 5
The Artificial Valleys of La Legua, La Magdalena and Maranga
5-1 Mapping the area of investigation:
One of the first tasks done in this research was mapping the area of investigation, locating the
irrigation channels, ponds, ancient roads and archeological sites. Because this area is currently
completely urbanized, it was impossible to use modern maps or satellite images for this task.
The elaboration of the maps 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6 was based on various sources:
modern maps contrasted with old maps, aerial photographs from 1943-1944 and Colonial and
Republican documentation referring to the old systems of irrigation and archaeological sites. It
should be noted that it is impossible to know exactly how the valley was at the arrival of
Europeans in the Sixteenth Century. There are areas that were urbanized very early, like Lima
downtown, El Callao Port, and the towns of La Magdalena and Magdalena del Mar. However, the
map product of this work collected lots of information, enough to reach important conclusions.
First, urban-topographic maps of Lima scale 1:5000 made in 2003 by the Peruvian National
Geographic Institute, were used in order to draw the coastline, the Rimac River, contour levels
every 5 m and the WGS84 coordinate system using the program CorelCAD.
The next task was to rebuild the Callao northern shoreline that changed drastically with the
expansion of the port during the first half of the Twentieth Century. The map of Callao made in
1855 by L. Marini (Paz Soldán 1865) was used superimposing it on the modern map using corners
of blocks and avenues in both maps as references. This allowed also locating the Blanco lagoons
in the southern part of the town and a small lagoon at La Punta.
72
Maps of Lima and Callao made by the Peruvian National Geographic Institute in 1979 allowed
the location of some archaeological sites and irrigation channels that still existed at that time.
Another important contribution of these maps was to recognize where in Rimac River the main
inlets of the Mother Channel were located that originated the channels of de La Legua, La
Magdalena and Maranga, some sections of Maranga channel, and various secondary and tertiary
channels in the area.
Other old maps of Lima, made by Camilo Vallejo in 1907, Enrique Silgado in 1935, Héctor
Neuman in 1908 and the Provincial Council of Lima in 1943 (Günther 1983: maps 21, 22, 26 and
27) were very useful in order to locate archaeological sites, roads, irrigation channels and
reservoirs. Other useful maps were: Magdalena (Sheet 5-H) from 1965 and Callao (Sheet 4-H)
from 1964 made by the former Military Geographic Institute, the "Map of channels and inlets that
irrigate the valleys of the Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua" from 1774 deposited in the Library
of Catalunya (BC, Ms 400, 116; Mattos-Cárdenas 2004: fig. III.14), the "Map of Pando Estate"
made by Juan Lituma in 1962 located in the library of the Catholic University in Lima, the
“General Map of the city of Lima, Callao, and Resorts" scale 1:10000 made in 1959 by Máximo
Motta deposited at the Geographic Society of Lima, the maps of the area where the Stadium of
San Marcos University was built made by Labarthe in 1941 and A.T. Romero in 1943 deposited
in the Archives of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and the map of the
"Ruins of Watikamarka" deposited in the “Tello Archive” in the National Museum of
Archaeology, Anthropology and History of Peru.
Another important part of the work was the use of aerial photographs of the National
Aerophotographic Service (Project SAN 340) from 1943-1944. Those photographs were placed
on the map in progress, eliminating the extremes of the pictures in order to reduce as far as
73
possible the distortion, and using common points of reference such as block corners, intersections
of avenues, channels, archaeological sites, etc. CorelCAD allowed locating, orienting and scaling
the photo automatically. Special attention was paid to archaeological sites, irrigation channels,
reservoirs and ancient roads that were located in the map.
The following bibliographic sources were also used: the sketch map of the “Ancient City of
Huadca” (Middendorf 1894:90), the sketch maps of several archaeological sites in the area, made
by the “Deliberative Board of Metropolitan Lima” (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963), the sketch map
with the location of the huacas of Pando of 1974 (Ramos de Cox et al 1974-1975), the map of the
irrigation channels and “seigniors” of the Valley of the Rimac River (Rostworowski 1978), the
photogrammetric map of Maranga Archaeological Complex (Canziani 1987), with important
additions by Espinoza (2010), the map of Huacas Concha y Aramburu made by Max Uhle at the
beginning of the Twentieth Century by Max Uhle (Wurster 1999) and the sketch maps of several
archeological sites like “Chacra Cerro”, “Makatampu” and “Maranga” (Tello 1999).
In order to determine the limits of each one of the three valleys, first the routes of the main
channels were observed in the maps and the lands that were irrigated by its secondary channels
(departing from the main channel) and tertiary (departing from the secondary ones). The result
was contrasted with Late Colonial and Republican documents (Cerdán y Pontero 1793,
Jochamowitz 1919) which contains the lists of farms and channels from each Valley. Once the
limits of the valleys were established, a special code was assigned to each identified
archaeological site. For the La Magdalena Valley “LM”, for Maranga Valley “M” and for La
Legua Valley “ LL”, each one with a consecutive number.
Google Earth satellites pictures were useful not only to make additional adjustments of the
map but also to identify the UTM coordinate of each site. Those pictures showed only slightly
74
differences with the UTM coordinates compared with the National Geographic Institute maps, but
there were important differences with the altitudes, between 3 and 4.4 meters. In this case, the
information offered by the maps was used. Google Earth pictures also served to identify the
archaeological sites that still exist today, which was also corroborated with the field work. The
sites are described as follows:
Mounds: small sites without visible architecture on the surface in the aerial photo. The mounds
that were excavated usually are rectangular platforms with small enclosures and corridors on the
top with several construction phases.
Small pyramids: Buildings of several superimposed platforms, with the base bigger than the
upper part, and enclosures at the top. They are no more than 60 m long and 5 m high.
Pyramids: Buildings of large dimensions and multiple superimposed platforms with enclosures,
passages and large courtyards on the top. They are between 60 and 380 m long and between 5 to
33 m high.
Walls: isolated architectonic units of various dimensions, reaching in some cases up to 550 m in
length and 4 m high. Sometimes three or more walls surround large spaces encircling pyramids,
mounds, and irrigation channels.
Roads: two parallel walls with a mud floor between them that run over a great distances,
sometimes as long as 500 m.
Midden deposits: Are layers of domestic garbage composed of ashes, sherds, bones, seashells
and vegetal remains. Usually, they do not have evidence of architecture, although in some cases
they are associated with mud or stone floors, and burials.
There are also some artificial hills of uncertain dating that are accumulation of earth or gravel
without architecture that mostly surround reservoirs.
75
The chronology is: Initial Period (I), Early Horizon Period (EH), Early Intermediate Period
(EI), Middle Horizon Period (MH), Late Intermediate Period (LI) and Late Horizon Period (LH).
5.2 The Common Valley:
The channels of La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga originated from a main channel,
known as "Cañón" or "acequia común" (common ditch) by Cerdán (1793:93) on the south bank of
the Rimac River. The 1774 map from the “Catalonia Library”, shows two water inlets, called
“Toma Principal Primera” (First Main Inlet) or “Santo Domingo” and “Toma Principal Segunda”
(Second Main Inlet) or “Santa Rosa”. Both can be seen in the map of Lima of the Peruvian Army
from 1979. Santo Domingo inlet is located behind the Lima Central Mail office, next to Santo
Domingo Monastery, in the UTM coordinates 279137 mE and 86667657 mS at150 m.a.s.l. Santa
Rosa inlet was situated 360 m west of the first one in what was once the Santa Rosa Monastery in
the UTM coordinates 18L 278657 mE and 8667978 mS at 145 m.a.s.l.
The main channel continues towards the Northwest for about 780 m, makes a Southwest turns
for about 550 m, and then turns to the Northwest for another 130 m where the Maranga Channel
emerges on the south side of the main channel. The channel continues toward the Northwest for
another 600 m and finally turns to the Southwest for 320 m, where the channel is divided in two,
the channel of La Legua to the West and the Maranga channel to the Southwest.
Because Cerdán y Pontero described this section as "common ditch", in this research it was
decided to call all the irrigated space located to the North of this channel as "Common Valley". It
has a very small area of 0.7 km² and looks totally urbanized with no evidences of archaeological
sites in the 1944 aerial picture.
76
5.3 The La Magdalena Channel Valley:
The La Magdalena Channel emerges from the Mother Channel in the UTM coordinates
277259 mE and 8667960 mS at 131 m. a.s.l. in a place called "quatro bocas" (Four Mouths) in the
map of the of Catalonia Library from 1776, "4 mouths" by Cerdan y Pontero (1793:82) and "Four
Mouths" in the sketch map of Jochamowitz (1929:376-377). The channel goes toward the
Southwest for 3.9 km and turns to the West. In this section there are at least six secondary
channels moving towards the Northwest ending in the channel of Maranga. In Camilo Vallejos’
map from 1907 there are several channels in this area that receive the names of "Paulino",
"Santiago de Cueva", and "Santiaguillo" (Gunther 1983: map 22). However, because this map is
very imprecise, it is difficult to establish which is which in the 1944 aerial photo. In these same
photos several archaeological mounds can be noticed in this section of the Valley of La
Magdalena, which are, from North to South, from LM-1 to LM-21.
In the UTM coordinates 276179 mE and 8664226 mS, La Magdalena channel turns toward the
West. In the same place a secondary channel goes to the South ending in a reservoir, barely
visible in the aerial photo of 1944 due to new construction in the area, but which was recorded in
the maps of Lima of Eugenio Abele from 1898 (Bromley and Barbagelata 1945) and Cristóbal
Caballero y Lastres from 1927 (Günther 1983: map 24).
The channel turns to the west for 0.7 Km. South of this section is located the old town of La
Magdalena only a small mound, LM-22, is visible in the aerial photo of 1944. At the UTM
coordinates 275512 mE and 8664230 mS the channel turns to the Southwest. A secondary channel
goes to the Southwest in zig-zag fashion for about 1.8 km until the point located at the UTM
coordinates 273727 mE and 8664259 mS where it disappears in the fields. Part of this secondary
channel is accompanied by a road that goes west from La Magdalena to Maranga. In this section
77
there are several tertiary channels which are moving to the South, ending in the northern shore of
La Magdalena Channel, which intersect with others that move from East to West. Several mounds
are distributed throughout this space: from LM-29 to LM-50 and from LM-55 to LM-66 and LM-
67, the fragments of a walled road next to the road that goes from Bellavista to La Magdalena.
At the UTM coordinates 275512 mE and 8664230 mS La Magdalena Channel moves to the
Southwest for 0.65 km reaching the UTM coordinates 275331 mE and 8663607 mS where it turns
towards the West. South of this section, there are several secondary channels with northeast-
southwest orientation which end in a channel that belongs to the Huatica Valley. In this area
several mounds are visible in aerial photos of 1944: from LM-23 to LM-35. A significant
concentration of mounds was located Southeast of this space, but they belong to the Huatica
Valley.
The main channel of La Magdalena continues towards the west for 1.4 km, joining the road
that goes from Bellavista to La Magdalena. There it feeds two large reservoirs. The one that is
located more to the West appears in Juan Lituma’s map of “Pando Estate” from 1962 and is
named "San Jose Pond". In this place the channel turns toward the Northwest, along the road from
La Magdalena to Bellavista, for 1 km until it meets a channel and a road with Southwest-
Northeast direction, marking the limits of the Valley of Maranga.
The area situated South of the channel has two secondary channels and several tertiary
channels moving from the Northeast to the Southwest, intersecting other channels moving from
Southeast to Northeast and two roads that connect fields and some modern houses. In the 1774
map of the valleys of the Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua deposited in the Catalunya Library,
there are references about the existence of the secondary channels named "Governador de Indios",
"Hurtado" and "San Cayetano". In Camilo Vallejos’ map from 1927 the channels of "San
78
Miguel", "Governor" and "San Cayetano" are located in the same area. However, given the
imprecision of both maps, it is difficult to know which is which in 1944 air photos. In those
photos it is also possible to identify the pyramids LM-51 and LM-52 (commonly known as Huaca
Huantille), and the mounds LM-35, LM-36, LM-37, LM-53, LM-67, LM-68, 69-LM, LM-70,
LM-71, LM-72, LM-73, LM-74, LM-75, LM-76 and LM-77.
The area located to the West of La Magdalena Channel is not included in this valley since it
was irrigated by secondary channels from Huatica Channel. It is impossible that secondary
channels from La Magdalena irrigated this area due to the relief of the terrain that is higher toward
the east. Cerdán y Pontero also wrote that the “City of "Kings" (Lima) was irrigated by the
Huatica Channel (Cerdán y Pontero 1793:33, 39) and that the estates of “Santa Beatriz”, “San
Martín”, “Cabezas”, “Garate”, “Santa Teresa” and “Lince”, located East of La Magdalena
Channel, received water from Huatica (Cerdán y Pontero 1793:80). Jovavomich indicates that the
estates of Breña, Azcona, located on both sides of La Magdalena Channel, and Oyague, Chacra
Colorada, Jesús Maria, Santa Beatriz and Desamparados estates were fed by the Huatica Channel
(Jochamowitz 1918:333).
La Magdalena Channel was 7 km long, and the Valley formed by its secondary and tertiary
channels comprises an area of 7.8 km².
Table 5-1 has a brief description of all the sites detected in La Magdalena valley, including the
type of site, location based on their UTM coordinates and altitude, and their current situation, if
they are preserved, partially preserved (in case less than 50% of the site remains until now), or if
they completely disappeared. Then, there are additional descriptions of the sites that have more
information, especially those where previous investigations were made.
79
Table 5-1. The La Magdalena Channel Valley Archaeological Sites
Code Common Type of site Periods UTM coordinates Altitude Current
name m.a.s.l situation
LM-23 - Mound - 275636 mE/8663685 mS 87 Disappeared
LM-28 Huaca Oyagüe Mound - 275623 mE/8663543 mS 85 Disappeared
LM-37 - Mound - 274979 mE 8663171 mS 75 Disappeared
LM-38 - Mound - 274460 mE 8664295 m S 77 Disappeared
LM-42 - Small - 274283 mE/8663924 mS 73 Disappeared
pyramid
80
Table 5-1. The La Magdalena Channel Valley Archaeological Sites (continuation)
Pyramid
LM-52 Huaca Pyramid LI – LH 274461 mE/8663177 mS 68 Preserved
Huantille
LM-54 Huaca Grande Small LI-LH 274423mE/8662564 mS 63 Disappeared
Pyramid
pyramid
81
Table 5-1. The La Magdalena Channel Valley Archaeological Sites (continuation)
LM-67 - Road - 273896 mE/8663606 mS 65 Disappeared
LM-69 Huaca Juan Mound I – EH 273753 mE/8663378 mS 62 Disappeared
XXIII
LM-77 - Mound - 272865 mE/ 8662978 mS 49 Disappeared
82
Small Road
Pyramid pyramid 1%
2% 5%
Mound
92%
Chart 5-1. Relative frequency of sites per type in La Magdalena Channel Valley
Preserved
1%
Dissapeared
99%
Chart 5-2. Relative frequency of sites per current situation in La Magdalena Channel Valley
83
LM-28 was known as “Huaca Oyague” and located where the “College of Jesus” is now. It
was demolished in 1953 (Ravines 1985:96). In the 1944 air photo the mound shows a "L" shape
with 58 m East-West and 33 m North-South with some apparently rammed earth walls oriented
84° NE which form at least one enclosure at the top. A modern irrigation channel cut the South
side of the site.
LM-51 was also known as Huaca Orbea. It was between 4 and 8 m high with rammed earth
constructions. It was demolished in 1950 (Ravines 1985:96). According to the aerial photo of
1944 the building was 63 m North-South and 57 m East-West with its structures oriented 74° NE
with at least two superimposed platforms with enclosures on the top. Towards the West side there
is a stepped slope of at least 4 steps.
LM-52 (figures 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3,) is known as Huaca San Miguel due to the name of the estate
where it was situated (Hutchinson 1873:284; Middendorf 1894:99). The most common name is
“Huantille”, proposed originally by Hutchinson (1873:285) on the basis of Cerdán’s (1793)
manuscript where, based on Hutchinson, the site appears with the name "Huantillee fortress".
Actually, that name is not in that document, and it is not known from where Hutchinson got it.
This huaca is also named “Orbea”, “Huantilla”, “Echenique”, “Magdalena” or “Ladrillera”
(Bonavia et 1962-1963:63; Ravines 1985:62). It is possible that the name of this huaca during the
18th century was “Ñancaxma”, a name that is consigned in the will of a “principal lady” of La
Magdalena, which mentions a land that had among its limits La Magdalena town and, overlooking
the sea, a large “huaca” with that name (Adanaqué 2008-2009:52).
Middendorf said that this building was located in a large walled space 350 steps long by 200
steps wide with walls. It was considered a fortress to the huaca and the walled area a fortified
camp (Middendorf 1894:99) or the “Palace of the Lord or King of the Valley” (Middendorf
84
1894:102). He also published the first photo that is known of the site (Middendorf 1894:99).
Another important picture was taken by Johnson (1930), showing the site surrounded by
agricultural fields and the incipient urban expansion in the area.
In the 1944 aerial photograph, the site was already in the modern urban area of Magdalena del
Mar town, with its Southern extreme badly affected by the exploitation of the site as a quarry for
brick production (Figure 5-1). This situation involved the forceful intervention of the Committee
of archaeological monuments, until exploitation was stopped (Tello 1999:109-111). The Huaca
was, according to the aerial picture, 145 m North-South and 130 m East-West. It is also possible
to see large stepped platforms and rectangular enclosures on top with an orientation of 65° NE.
“The Metropolitan deliberative Board” mentioned the discovery of walls painted in white,
which were destroyed by the brick production workers (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:63). Ravines
described it as a large pyramidal structure of 60 m long by 40m wide (measures that are incorrect)
and 12 m high, consisting of three superposed platforms with thick rammed earth walls, some of
which would have been painted in white and yellow. On top of the pyramid there is a set of patios
and rooms distributed around a space of 11.5 m by 46 m, and a stairway on the northern front
(Ravines 1985:62).
After many decades of neglect in which the site was partially occupied by a slum, research
and conservation of the site began in 2007 (Guillén 2012:372).
Huaca Huantille is a 16 m high terraced pyramid with a central staircase as the main access,
with large terraces and enclosures located in the upper part of the building. Many of the walls of
the edification are painted in white and yellow, some of them with red wisps and niches as
decoration. The excavations have identified three stages of reconstruction belonging to the Late
Intermediate Period (Guillen 2012:376).
85
In the latest period, called “C”, there are several enclosures at the top of the building that are
very ruined. In Period B, the best preserved, there is an enclosure of 32 by 29 m, with 0.06 m high
L-shaped hollow floors, located in the North-West, which is accessed from the outside by the
grand staircase previously mentioned. A series of other enclosures were built at this time, one
located East of the plaza also with L shaped hollow floor and large jars, probably for maize beer
storage (Guillén 2012:378).
In Period “A” there are 8 wide rectangular enclosures interconnected through access, passages
and staircases. It was possible to distinguish several construction phases where the enclosures
were expanded, divided and finally sealed (Guillén 2012:380). In this period there is also an
enclosure named “X” with a long wall 20 m by 2.6 m high with geometric and zoomorphic
decoration friezes, as well as graffiti representing seabirds (Guillén 2012:381). The construction
fills that sealed this enclosures were made using the technique of the “grate”, which consists of
walls made with pebbles or fragments of old walls forming quarters which were filled (Guillén
2012:384). On the floor of one of the enclosures there are numerous small, circular, and very
shallow pits, containing offerings consisting of plant debris, fish vertebrae, crabs, and in one case
a guinea pig. Four large pits in the side could have served as bases for big jars (Guillén
2012:385).
There are two periods when the pyramid was used for funeral activities. The first one, during
the Late Horizon Period, the individuals were arranged in fetal position and placed in small
rectangular rooms made of mud-bricks and boulders, accompanied in some cases with metal
tweezers and pottery vessels (Guillén 2012:387).The second moment, stratigraphically over the
first one, seems to correspond to Early Colonial times with the corpses placed extended
horizontally and without major associations (Guillén 2012:387). The pottery is Ychsma style and
86
consisted of large and medium-sized jugs, jars and domestic pots, as well as small jars, fragments
of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, fragments of Chancay pottery and jars that have
been considered imported (Guillén 2012:389).
LM-53 was a mound that looks much destroyed in the aerial photo of 1944. In a document of
1941 Adán Cueto says that it was 60 m long by 30 m wide and 12 m high and was in process of
demolition (Tello 1999:114).
Figure 5-1. Aerial picture of the Huacas Orbea and Huantille in 1944 (S.A.N.)
87
Figure 5-2. Cut side of Huaca Huantille (LM-52) in 2007.
Figure 5-3. Satellite image of Huaca Huantille (LM-52) in 2012 (Google Earth)
88
Figure 5-4. Aerial picture of part of La Magdalena Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)
LM-54 also known as “Huaca Grande” (Tello 1999:116) was a small pyramid made of
rammed earth walls. In a document from 1941 Adán Cueto situated it between Castilla and
Galvez streets. At that time it was being destroyed for brick production. It would have been,
according to Cueto, 20 m by 30 m long and 4 m high. A photo allowed seeing the process of
destruction and walls made of rammed earth (Tello 1999:114). The dimensions of the site varies
in other documents of that year: 70 m long by 20 m wide and 10 high or 75 m long, 24 wide and 6
m high (Tello 1999:115). In the 1944 air photo the site is gone.
LM-69 was located where the Juan XXIII School was built, and that is why the site was known
as “Huaca Juan XXIII”. Excavations made in 1974 by the Riva-Agüero Institute discovered an
early occupation that would correspond to the Early Horizon Period (Ravines 1985:62).
Unfortunately the results of this work were never published. In the aerial photo of 1944 the
89
mound is in the middle of the fields. It was 34 m north-south by 21 m east-west. There are no
visible constructions on the surface.
LM-76 was known as Huaca San Miguel and was located between La Paz and San Miguel
streets and “Independencia” Avenue. It was 25 m long, 9.8 m wide and 9.6 m high. It was
demolished in 1963 (Ravines 1985:96). In the 1944 aerial photo the site was heavily modified by
the construction of a modern house on top of the mound. The north side of the site had a stepped
profile with three superimposed terraces. It was 34 m north-south and 27 m east-west.
LM-77 was located close to “Libertad” Avenue in San Miguel. In the 1944 air picture the site
looks altered by the construction of modern houses in the surroundings. Part of the mound existed
in 1974 judging by a photograph of that year that shows the site with rammed earth walls Class 2
(Ravines 1985:97).
5.4. The Maranga Channel Valley:
The Maranga Channel emerged from the "Common Channel" at the UTM coordinates 276675
mE / 8667823 mS, at 83 m.a.s.l., heading towards the southwest for 2.4 km. In this part many
secondary channels appeared with southwest-northeast orientation, intersecting other channels
with northeast-southwest orientation. In the 1944 aerial picture several mounds can be seen in this
area: M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7, known as “Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa”, M-8, M-9, M-
10 and M-11.
At the UTM coordinates 275769 mE and 8665592 mS the channel turns toward the northwest
and a secondary channel with northeast-southwest orientation emerges from the main channel
with an extension of 0.5 km, ending in a large water reservoir called "Cueva Estate Dam" (Tello
1999). The archaeological group Mateo Salado is situated west of this secondary channel. The site
90
is composed of four major pyramids, M-12, M-13, M-14, M-15, and a small one, M-16, as well as
M-17, a wall that closes the group to the north. Another wall M-18 closes the site it to the East.
One more wall, M-19, is located between M-15 and M-16, and yet another wall, M-20, the group
on the south side. M-21 is an archaeological walled road, located near a Colonial Period road that
moves from East to West.
Several secondary channels emerged from the reservoir moving towards the west and south.
Mounds M-23 to M-53, now disappeared due to the modern urban expansion, can be observed in
the aerial photo from 1944. There is also a rammed earth wall M-22 with SE-NW orientation and
of 206 m length.
At the coordinates UTM 274845 mN and 8665765 mS Maranga Channel moved towards the
SW for about 0.9 km. South of this section several secondary channels emerged from the main
channel heading SW, and intersecting with others oriented SE-NW. Several mounds are located in
this area: M-54, M-55 (Huaca La Luz I), M-55 (Huaca La Luz II), M-57, M-58, M-59, M-60, M-
70 and M-71, two small pyramids M-57 (Huaca Panteón Chino), M-62, and M-73 a walled road
oriented SE-NW that goes to Maranga archaeological complex.
West of this part of the valley there is a secondary channel moving towards the west at the
UTM coordinates 274671 mE / 8665670 mS. Two mounds are located South of this channel: M-
63 (Huaca Corpus I) and M-64 (Huaca Corpus II) as well as a reservoir that is called "Pando
pond" in Luis Gallo Porras’ map from 1943 (Gunther 1983: Map 27) and in Juan Lituma’s “Pando
Estate” map from 1962. More to the south at the UTM coordinates 274511 mE/8665482 mS
another secondary channel emerged towards the West, on the South side of which the mounds M-
65 (Huaca 66), M-66 (Huaca 65 or “Huaca Culebras”), M-67, M-68 (Huaca 64), and M-69
(Huaca 64A) were located.
91
West of these three secondary channels emerged and moved westward, irrigating fields and
several archaeological sites in the southern part of the Maranga archaeological complex. The first
appeared at the UTM coordinates 273591 mE and 866556-mS. South of it there were the mounds
M-75 (Huaca 16A), M-76 (Huaca 17), M-77 (Huaca 18), M-78 (Huaca 16), M-79, M-81, M-82
(Huaca 20), M-116 (Huaca 28), M-117 (Huaca 56), M-118, M-120, M-80 pyramids (Huaca 19 or
“Potosí Alto”), M-83 (Huaca 20A), M-84 (Huaca 31), M-85 (Huaca 25) and M-86 (Huaca 30) and
M-119 a walled road and M-155, the North wall of the walled enclosure.
The second secondary channel in this part of the valley emerged at the UTM coordinates
273418 mE and 8665230 mS, moving to the West. Several mounds of Maranga archeological
complex are located South of this channel: M-89 (Huaca 34), M-90 (Huaca 35), M-92, M-93
(Huaca 43) and the M-87 pyramids (Huaca 32), M-88 (Huaca 33). The Interior of the enclosure
walls are mounds M-123 (Huaca 55), M-124, M-125 (Huaca 57), M-128 (Huaca 54), M-129
(Huaca 59), M-134 (Huaca 47), M-135 and M-136 and the pyramids-M-125 (Huaca 57), M-126
(Huaca 50), M-130 (Huaca 60), M-131 (Huaca 50), M-132 (Huaca 58), and M-133.
The third secondary channel emerged in the UTM coordinates 273325 mE and 8664927 mS
heading southwest. South of this channel there were the following Maranga archaeological group
mounds: M-94, M-99, M-100, M-101, M-102 (Huaca 44), M-103, M-104 (Huaca 42), M-105, M-
106, M-107 (Huaca 41), M-108, M-109, M-110, M-111 and M-112, M-149 (Huaca 52), M-139,
M-140, M-142, M-143, M-144, M-145, M-146, M-147 (Huaca 51), M-150 (Huaca 52), M-151,
the pyramids M-91 (Huaca 36 or “Huaca Cruz Blanca”), M-95 (Huaca 37 or “Huaca San
Miguel”), M-141 (Huaca 48 or “Huaca La Palma”) and M-137 (Huaca 46), the walls M-138 (Wall
46th), M-139 and M-153 of the south part of the enclosed area, M-143, which is a walled road
92
that goes west-east and is an access to Huaca La Palma (M-141) from the walled enclosure, and a
reservoir located inside the walled enclosure.
The Maranga irrigation channel continues towards the SW for about 0.7 km until it reaches a
large reservoir that is known as "Maranga pond" on the Lima maps of Alejandro Garland from
1906 (Gunther 1983: map 22) and Luis Gallo Porras from 1943 (Gunther 1983: map 27). East of
this part of the channel are the pyramids M-96 (Huaca 38 or “Huaca La Cruz”), and M 98 (Huaca
40 or “Huaca Tres Palos”) and the mound M-97 (Huaca 39). From the pond emerged several
secondary channels that supplied water for an ample space located at the Southwest. There are
mounds of M-102, M-103, M-112, M-114, M-115, M-157, M-158, M-159, M-160, M-162 and M-
168, M-169, M-170 M-172 (“Bellavista Shellmound”), the small pyramids M-164 (“Huaca Casa
Rosada”) and M-165 (“Huaca Huantinamarca”), a midden deposit M-170, two fragments of walls,
M-161 and M-163, and two reservoirs.
The Maranga Channel from its origin in the Mother Channel until its end in the Maranga pond
extends for 5.7 km and the valley together with its secondary and tertiary channels and reservoirs
covers an area of 13 km².
Chart 5-2 has a brief description of all the sites detected in the Maranga Channel valley,
including the type of site, location based on their UTM coordinates and altitude, and their current
situation, if they are preserved, partially preserved (in case less than 50% of the site remains until
now), or if they completely disappeared. Then, there are additional descriptions of the sites that
have more information, especially those where previous investigations were made.
93
Chart 5-2. The Maranga Channel Valley archaeological sites
M-1 - Mound - 275631 mE/8667181 mS 107 Disappeared
M-7 Huaca Huerto Mound I– EH– 275220 mE/8666062 mS 97 Heavily
Santa Rosa LH affected
M-9 - Mound - 275104 mE 8665985 mS 97 Disappeared
M-12 Huaca Mateo Pyramid LI– LH 275142 mE/8665506 mS 93 Preserved
Salado III
M-13 Huaca Mateo Pyramid LI – LH 275473 mE/8665453 mS 95 Preserved
Salado II
Salado I
Salado IV
M-16 Huaca Mateo Pyramid LI– LH 275186 mE/8665155 Ms 91 Preserved
Salado V
M-17 - Wall LI – LH 275740 mE/8665566 mS 100 Disappeared
94
Chart 5-2. The Maranga Channel Valley archaeological sites (continuation)
M-18 - Wall LI – LH 275729 mE/8665504 mS 100 Preserved
M-19 - Wall LI – LH 275225 mE/8665165 mS 92 Disappeared
M-20 - Wall LI-LH 275481 mE/8665148 mS 90 Heavily
affected
M-21 - Road LI – LH 275117 mE/8665087 mS 90 Disappeared
M-22 - Wall LI-LH 275345 mE/8664955 mS 92 Disappeared
M-37 - Mound - 274995 mE/8664537 mS Disappeared
95
Chart 5.2. The Maranga Channel Valley archaeological sites (continuation)
M-39 - Small - 274995 mE/8664525 mS 86 Disappeared
pyramid
M-44 - Mound Small 274882 mE/8664936 mS 86 Disappeared
pyramid
M-55 Huaca La Luz Mound LH 274430 mE/8665199 mS 82 Preserved
M-56 Huaca La Luz Mound LH 274458 mE/8665157 mS 82 Preserved
II
M-57 Panteón Chino Small LI – LH 274466 mE/8665015 mS 81 Preserved
pyramid
96
M-63 Huaca Corpus Mound LI – LH 274229 mE/8665734 mS 81 Preserved
M-64 Huaca Corpus Mound I –EH 274435 mE/8665698 mS 83 Preserved
II
M-65 Huaca 66 Mound LI – LH 274190 mE/8665168 mS 76 Disappeared
M-66 Huaca 65- Mound LI – LH 273836 mE/8665346 mS 74 Preserved
Huaca
Culebras
M-68 Huaca 64 Mound - 273619 mE/8665067 mS 69 Disappeared
M-69 Huaca 64A Mound LI – LH 273780 mE/8665150 mS 72 Preserved
M-71 Huaca 62 Mound LI – LH 273819 mE 8664712 mS 70 Preserved
M-72 Huaca 63 Mound LI – LH 273775 mE/8664576 mS 68 Disappeared
M-73 Camino Inca Road LH 273530 mE/8664522 mS 65 Preserved
de la Católica
97
M-75 Huaca 16A Mound - 273282 mE/8665497 mS 67 Disappeared
M-77 Huaca 18 Mound - 273393 mE/8665588 mS 69 Preserved
M-80 Huaca 19 – Small EI-MH 273420 mE/8665483 mS 70 Preserved
Huaca Potosí pyramid
Alto
M-82 Huaca 20 Mound EI– MH 273311 mE/8665318 mS 67 Heavily
affected
M-83 Huaca 20A Mound EI–MH– 273444 mE/8665275 mS 68 Preserved
LH
M-84 Huaca 31 Pyramid - 273179 mE/8665304 mS 60 Preserved
M-85 Huaca 25 Pyramid - 273028 mE/ 8665471 mS 68 Heavily
affected
M-86 Huaca 30 Pyramid - 272953 mE/8665342 mS 65 Preserved
98
M-91 Huaca 36 – Pyramid LI-LH 273201 mE/8664910 mS 63 Preserved
Huaca Cruz
Blanca
M-93 Huaca 43 Mound EI-LI-LH 272852 mE/8664977 mS 59 Heavily
affected
Huaca San
Miguel
Huaca La
Cruz
M-98 Huaca 40 – Pyramid - 273149 mE/8664534 mS 60 Preserved
Huaca Tres
Palos
99
M-113 Wall LI-LH 273139 mE/8664353 mS 59 Preserved
M-116 - Wall - 272279 mE/8665669 mS 54 Disappeared
M-119 - Road LI-LH 272476 mE/8665482 mS 54 Disappeared
M-124 - Mound - 272340 mE/8665415 mS 53 Preserved
100
M-133 Isla 1 Mound - 272632 mE/8665149 mS 58 Heavily
affected
M-134 Huaca 47 Mound - 272754 mE/8665126 mS 58 Heavily
affected
M-136 - Mound LI-LH 272742 mE/8664983 mS 57 Preserved
M-138 Muralla 46A Wall LI-LH 272655 mE/ 8664905 mS 55 Preserved
mS
M-139 - Wall - 272650 mE/8664960 mS 55 Disappeared
M-140 Huaca 45 Mound - 272638 mE/ 8664814 mS 55 Preserved
Huaca La
Palma
101
M-142 - Mound - 272424 mE/8665080 mS 55 Preserved
M-143 - Wall 272245 Me/8665094 mS 52 Preserved
M-148 Muralla Wall - 272049 mE/8665145 mS 48 Disappeared
Santiaguito
M-149 Wall - 272083 mE/8665126 mS 48 Disappeared
M-150 - Road - 271982 mE/8665166 mS 48 Disappeared
M-152 - Mound - 271970 m E/8665109 mS 46 Disappeared
M-153 Muralla 55A Wall - 272195 mE/8664991 mS 49 Heavily
affected
M-154 Muralla 55E Wall LI-LH 272849 mE/ 8665114 mS Preserved
M-155 Muralla 55D Wall LI-LH 272392 mE/8665466 mS 55 Preserved
M-156 Muralla 55B Wall LI-LH 272123 mE/8665390 mS 50 Heavily
affected
M-157 - Mound LI-LH 271844 mE/ 8664774 mS 46 Disappeared
M-159 - Mound 271455 mE/8664947 mS 42 Disappeared
M-161 - Wall - 270693 mE/8664811 Ms 33 Disappeared
102
Code Common name Type of Periods UTM coordinates Altitude Current
site m.a.s.l situation
M-162 - Small - 271008 mE/8664751 mS 37 Disappeared
pyramid
M-163 - Wall - 272304.40 m E 49 Disappeared
8664037.43 m S
Huaca Casa
M-164 Rosada – Huaca Small LI-LH 272790 mE 8663552 mS 51 Preserved
San José pyramid
Huaca 67 –
M-165 Huaca Small LI-LH 272459 mE/8663367 mS 46 Preserved
Huantinamarca pyramid
M-166 Huaca Feria del 272162 mE/8663530 mS 45 Disappeared
Pacífico Mound I-LH
M-170 - Midden LH 270099 mE/8664537 mS 26 Disappeared
deposit
M-172 Conchal Midden - 268672 mE/8664507 mS 21 Disappeared
Bellavista deposit
103
Road Midden
Small 2% deposit
pyramid Wall 1%
3% 10%
Pyramid
8%
Mound
76%
Chart 5-3. Relative frequency of sites per type in Maranga Channel Valley.
Preserved
29%
Disappeared
66% Heavily
affected
5%
Chart 5-4. Relative frequency of sites per current situation in the Maranga Channel Valley
104
M-7 (figures 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, and 5-8) is known as Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (Ravines 1985:50).
In the 1944 aerial photo the mound is in the middle of the fields and has an elongated shape wider
in the North than in the South. It was 76 m long N-S, 50 m wide E-W at the north end, and 35 m
wide E-W in the South.
The site was partially excavated in 1975 by Hermilio Rosas when the area began to be
urbanized (Ravines 1985:50). There was a report of such work and some of the results were partly
published (Ravines 1985:50). Unfortunately the report disappeared.
Apparently, it was a small pyramid composed of several super-imposed platforms. The
building has at least five construction phases. Evidence of the first phase was found two meters
below ground level and consisted of a group of walls made with small boulders settled with mud
and crudely plastered, forming narrow passageways. In the fills ceramics were found, possibly
from the Early Horizon Period (Ravines 1985:50).
During the second construction phase the oldest architecture was filled in order to raise new
walls made of stone pretty similar to the first phase, although irregular, handmade mud-bricks
settled with mud mortar were also used. These structures could belong to the Early Horizon
Period or the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period (Ravines 1985:50).
The third phase was the construction of a pyramid that covered the previous architecture.
Grids formed by rectangular compartments, formed by walls of irregular mud-bricks, were used to
fill the pervious phase, forming a flat surface where the floor of a platform was placed. In the
fillings of these structures sherds of the Ancon, Nieveria and “Huancho” styles were found.
(Ravines 1985:50).
The fourth phase was the renewal of the northern side of the building, with the construction of
a ramp 3 m long by 1 m wide that connected the lower part with the top of the platform, as well as
105
a two-step staircase, using Lima cubic mud-bricks. The fifth stage consists of a set of walls made
of boulders and mud probably “Huancho” (Ychsma) from the Late Intermediate and Late Horizon
periods (Ravines 1985:50).
Ceramics recovered during the excavations belong to three styles: Ancon, mostly neck-less
pots and bowls with incised decoration, Nieveria from the Middle Horizon Period, and “Huancho”
(Ychsma) from the Late Intermediate Period (Ravines 1985:50). This collection was deposited in
the National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and History and analyzed for this thesis.
Figure 5-5. Aerial photo of part of the Valley of Maranga Channel in 1944 showing M-7 (Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa) (S.A.N.)
106
Figure 5-6. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7) in 2007.
Figure 5-7. Spherical mud-bricks from the Early Horizon Period in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-
7) in 2010.
107
Figure 5-8. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7) in 2010.
Mateo Salado (figures 5-9 and 5-10), is the name of a group of five pyramids located very
close to the Maranga Channel. In aerial photos and old maps in addition to the five pyramids (M-
12, M-13, M-14, M-15 and M-16) there were three walls that enclosed the complex in the north
(M-17), east (M-18) and south (M-20), also another wall (M-19) that separated the pyramids-M-
15 and M-16 and a large pond at the southeastern part of the site that was fed by a secondary
channel from the main Maranga Channel.
The site was initially mentioned by the priest Antonio de la Calancha who called it ¨Mateo
Salado" because French hermit known by that name lived there. He was burned by the Inquisition
in Lima (Calancha 1638: Volume 4:130, 150). Calancha pointed out that it was a temple of
fishermen (Calancha 1638: Volume 4:130) or the palace of the "King Inga" (Calancha 1638:
Volume 4:150). In the map of the Catalunya Library from 1774 the site is mentioned as "Huacas
Chacra Ríos" (BC, Ms 400, 116, Mattos-Cárdenas 2004: fig. III.14).
108
Middendorf called the site "Cinco Cerritos” and highlighted the fact that it was surrounded by
walls 20 feet high for defensive purposes (Middendorf 1894:97). Villar (1942) also called it
"Ruins of Ascona" by the name of an estate with the same name that was located in the vicinity of
the site.
Figure 5-9. Aerial picture of Mateo Salado in 1944 (S.A.N.).
109
Figure 5-10. Satellite image of Mateo Salado in 2012 (Google Earth)
M-12 (Figure 5-11) is a pyramid 90 m long N-S by 102 m E-W and 10 m high, located on the
northwest corner of the complex. It is composed of at least 7 superimposed platforms, with some
rectangular enclosures at the top and an elongated one in the middle. On the south side, at a lower
level, there are at least 12 rectangular chambers in a row. The architecture is made using rammed
earth walls orientated 75° NE.
Villar (1942:255) and Tello (1999:98) considered this construction a burial pyramid, because
they thought that the chambers contained funerary bundles. The “Metropolitan Deliberative
Board” named it “Mateo Salado Sector III” (Bonavia et al. 1962 - 1963:38-39). The building was
made using rammed earth walls Class A.
M-13 (Figure 5-12) is a pyramid located on the north side of the group. It is 100 m N-S, 88 m
E-W and at least 10 m high, according to the National Geographic Institute maps. The 1944 air
photo shows that the site is composed of at least 6 superimposed platforms with a group of
enclosures at the top. The South façade of the pyramid has a stepped profile of 3 levels. Villar
110
(1942:249) considered it a burial pyramid. Tello identified it with the number II (Tello 1999:96-
98). The Metropolitan Deliberative Board called it “Mateo Salado Sector IV” (Bonavía et al.
1962-1963:42-43).
M-14 (figures 5-13 and 5-14) is a pyramid located on the west side of the group. It is 162m N-
S by 153 m E- W and it is composed of at least 4 superimposed platforms, with a series of
enclosures located on the top. The structures are oriented between 69° NE and 75° NE. It was
called by Villar (1942:249) the "Palace of Curaca" but he does not present any support for this
claim. Tello (1999:96-97) said that it was 15m high to 20 m. The Metropolitan Deliberative Board
called it “Mateo Salado Sector V”, considering it one of the best preserved of the group. The
building was made entirely with rammed earth and in one of the walls in a room there was a low
relief decoration depicting two birds united by the beak with white-painted outlines (Bonavía
1962-1963:46 et).
Figure 5-11. M-12 picture showing rammed earth walls Class 1
111
Figure 5-12. M-13. A Republican house is located on the top.
The site was excavated in 2000 by the archaeologist Maritza Pérez who, for descriptive
purposes, divided the construction into the following sectors: Sector A, composed of the main
and highest building; Sector B, is a group of structures that includes a small pyramid called
"minor pyramid", with a ramp in the South side and a rectangular square; (Towards the west side
of the pyramid, there are several enclosures); Sector C, composed of precincts situated at
different levels located on the West side of the sector B; and Sector D, three main squares with
passages and other smaller structures situated on the East side (Pérez 2001:13).
The excavations determined that the last occupation of the site belongs to the Late Horizon
Period, and consists of an enclosure with dual stairs in “Plaza IV”, another enclosure with niches
in its walls in Sector C, probably destined for residential activities, and other walls visible on the
surface. Also in Square I in “Sector D”, there is a ceremonial platform called “Ushnu” with the
sides painted in yellow and an access ramp. These constructions covered previous structures from
the Late Intermediate Period, sealing corridors and enclosures. The construction fills were put in
112
grids made with pieces of rammed earth walls or boulders with or without mud as mortar (Pérez
2004:14, 34). Middle Horizon sherds were also found in the construction fills, and probably there
are older occupations than the Late Intermediate Period (Pérez 2004:35).
Figure 5-13. M-14 in Mateo Salado in 2007
113
Figure 5-14. M-14. Detail of the architecture. Enclosure with staircase.
M-15 (figure 5-15) is located on the west side of the archaeological site and it is the largest
pyramid in the complex. It was 205 m E-W, 200 m N-S, and at least a 20 m high. In the 1944
aerial photo the building presents a main entrance at the north side where a ramp located in the
center leads to the top of the pyramid. The building has at least 4 superimposed platforms. At the
top there is a rectangular enclosure and many other small enclosures on the sides and a very long
corridor on the west side. The orientations of the main structures visible in the aerial photo are
varied. The walls of the corridor on the west side and the main square are oriented 73° NE, while
the walls forming the contours of the pyramid are to 82 ° NE. In the same picture, it can be seen
that the southeast corner of the building was being seriously affected by brick production.
This pyramid was considered by Villar (1942:249) as the "Great temple or main pyramid" with
a group of enclosures, squares and funerary chambers located at the top of the building (Villar
1942:250).
114
Tello identified this building with the number IV, considered it “the greatest waka”, 20 m
height, with a more or less rectangular shape and large patios in the upper part (Tello 1999:97-
98). The Metropolitan Deliberative Board called it “Mateo Salado Sector II” (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:34).
This pyramid has been recently subjected to intensive excavation and restoration by the
archaeologist Pedro Espinoza, although the results have not yet been published. The building is
made with rammed earth walls Class 1, and covering the external sides of the construction
rammed earth Class 2.
Figure 5-15. South side of M-15 after the restoration work.
115
Figure 5-16. Passage delimited by M-19 and the west side of M-15.
M-16 (Figure 5-17) is located in the SW part of the archaeological group and is the smallest
pyramid of the group. It is 55 m N-S, 47 m E-W and 5 m high. In the 1944 aerial picture it is
possible to see at least four superimposed platforms with some rectangular enclosures on the top.
Tello identified it with the number V, and described it as the smallest of the group with rammed
earth constructions over an accumulation of boulders. He argued that it probably was a cemetery,
although he gave it exaggerated heights: between 10 and 15 m (Tello 1999:96-97). The
Metropolitan Deliberative Board described it as a small pyramid with a rectangular plan 60 by 46
m long and 3 m high, with fur superimposed platforms made of rammed earth walls (Bonavía et
al. 1962-1963:31). The construction was made using rammed earth walls Class 1.
116
M-17 is a 2.5 m wide walled road that goes from east to west and with an orientation of 67°
NW. This road closed Mateo Salado group on the north side. It can be seen in the 1944 aerial
picture, but no longer exists.
M-18 It is a big wall made of rammed earth that closed Mateo Salado on the west side. Many
sections of this wall are preserved.
M-19 (Figure 5-16) is a big rammed earth wall with an orientation of 78° NE by 209 m long.
Villar (1942:255) mistakenly thought that it was part of the Inca coastal great road. Actually, it
forms a passage with the west side of the pyramid M-15, but in the 1944 aerial picture, this road
did not go further to the north or the south.
M-50 is a mound located below the Larco Herrera Archaeological Museum. It is commonly
said that this mound is an archaeological pyramid, although an archaeological investigation has
never been done on the site.
Figure 5-17. Pyramid M-16 and Wall M-19.
117
Figure 5-18. Wall M-20 used as part of Republican house in 2007.
M-55 (figures 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, and 5-24) is also known as Huaca La Luz I (Ramos de Cox
1971b) or Huaca Arco Iris (Ravines 1985:62). In the 1944 aerial picture, the mound is in the
middle of the fields and is 31 m N-S and 27 m E-W. There are some rammed earth walls, Class 1,
visible in the picture. The site was excavated in 1960 by the Riva-Agüero Institute of the Catholic
University. According to the records of these works, it is a small mound 3 m high with a sequence
of 3 layers. Layer 1 was from modern occupation on the mound, consisting of the remains of a
hut. Layer 2 was a dark earth with modern artifacts, perhaps intrusive from the top, and Layer 3
was composed by sand and pebbles, which is the architectural fill of the construction (Hernández
2011:274).
61 funerary contexts included in the fill layer or on the floor were excavated, which were
associated with pottery and textile instruments as offerings. There are, apparently, two types of
burials. One consisted of secondary burials deposited during the abandonment and sealing of the
118
huaca and the others are intrusive primary contexts in the architectonic fill of the edification
(Hernández 2011:274). Twenty-eight burials had at least one vessel as an offering. One funerary
context, 53, had Late Ychsma pottery, an anthropomorphic jar (Hernández 2011: Figure 6, fig.
13). Fourteen contexts had metal plates, silver laminated sheets in the shape of toads, a pitcher,
cloak pins, and trimmers, as well as imported spondylus shells (Vetter 2011:210-211; Hernández
2011:276-277). Given the abundance of textile instruments in burials and architectonic fills, it was
postulated that the site might have been a place for textile production during the Late Horizon
Period (Olivera de Bueno 1971:68; Ramos de Cox 1971a:103; Hernández 2011:277).
A vessel, commonly known as "Personage of the 5 little jars" was found in one of the burials.
It is a bottle with the representation of a person carrying a blanket in the back with five small
vessels. Josefina Ramos thought that it would be from the Late Intermediate Period (Ramos de
Cox 1970b:42), but it is actually from the Late Horizon Period. Three female figurines with
apparent cranial deformation and geometric designs on the head, representing headbands, and
necklaces were also found in the site deposited as offerings (O'Phelan 1971:96, 98). Vetter
published some field drawings and sketches made during the excavations (Vetter 2011: figures 2a
and 2b). Some profiles show that the burials were deposited after the building was abandoned and
sealed.
M-56 (figures 5-22 and 5-23), known as Huaca La Luz II (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Plate 1)
is situated 18 meters southeast from M-55. The aerial photo from 1944 shows the mound in the
middle of fields 25 m N-S in length and 22 m wide E-W and an appendix on the northeastern side
of 2 m in length that seems to be a large ramp. On the top of the mound, there are several rooms
with rammed earth walls Class 1 with an orientation of 81° NE. There are rectangular niches on
119
the inner faces of two walls. The site was excavated and restored in 2010, although the results
have not been published yet.
M-57 (Figure 5-19), is known as “Panteón Chino” (Chinese Pantheon), Julio C. Tello or Río
Tambo (Ravines 1985:62). In the 1944 aerial picture, the site is in the middle of the fields and in
relatively good condition. It is a building 56 m N-S by 40 m E-W and a height that does not reach
5 m. The building is composed of at least three superposed platforms with several rectangular
enclosures on the top. The building is divided into two sections separated by a large ramp 5 m
wide and enclosed by thick rammed earth walls. The site was partially excavated in 1960 by the
“Section of Exploration and Conservation of Archaeological monuments”, exposing part of the
architecture and some human burials (Ravines 1985:62) but the report disappeared. Ravines
published a sketch map, probably made during that work (Ravines 1985:62).
Figure 5-19. Partial view of the Valley of Maranga in 1944 (S.A.N.).
120
Figure 5-20. M-55 (Huaca La Luz I) in 2007.
Figure 5-21. M-55. Passage made with rammed earth walls Class 1.
Figure 5-22. M-56 (Huaca La Luz II) in 2007.
121
Figure 5-23. M-56 in 2007. Wall with rectangular niches.
M-63 (figures 5-24 and 5-25) is known as Huaca Corpus I or Huaca Pando (Ravines 1985:50).
In the aerial photograph of 1944 the mound is in the middle of the fields and is 60 m in length N-S
and 30 m E-W. There are some rammed earth walls Class 1 at the top of the building and a
modern irrigation channel in the western edge of the site. It was partially excavated in the 1960's
by the Riva-Agüero Institute of the Catholic University. It was described as a rectangular platform
14 m by 19 m and 40 cm high with a mud floor and surrounded by walls that have stone
foundations. The main access is on the west side. On the floor a large amount of camelid
excrement was found that led Josefina Ramos to think that it could have been a resting place for
llamas that transported products (Ramos de Cox 1971b:68; Corbacho 1970:1; Olivera de Bueno
1971:67). The platform was then covered with a large amount of earth, boulders and pottery
sherds, and modern garbage. In the architectonic fills several funerary bundles were found with
offerings like gourds, ceramic vessels, textiles and metallic artifacts including foils, needles and
“tupus” (Ramos de Cox 1971b:68; Vetter 2011:221). One of the bundles was put inside a box
122
made of reeds and textiles with a pyrographically incised gourd, and other offerings like a copper
tupu, a needle and pottery vessels (Corbacho 1970:1-2). The gourd had the representation of
shrimps, felines, a person with corn, two persons, one over the other, two long-necked animals,
probably camelids, two felines surrounding a lying man, and two birds around another lying man,
and monkeys arranged vertically (Ramos de Cox 1971b:68; Vetter 2011:221).
M-64 (figures 5-24, and 5-27) is known as Huaca Corpus II (Ramos de Cox1974-1975:
Lámina 1; Ravines 1985:50). In the aerial picture from 1944 the site looks like a small mound 22
m by 30 m length without visible structures on the surface. It was excavated by the Riva-Agüero
Institute, although the results of the work were never published. According to Ravines, it is a
mound formed by the accumulation of boulders with Late Intermediate Period burials with
domestic pottery and five jars with wide mouths. Very simple walls made of boulders and mud
and associated Ancon pottery style sherds from the Early Horizon Period were found in the lower
layers of the site (Ravines 1985:50).
M-65 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “mound 66” and was destroyed
by brick production (Bonavia et al. 1962-1963:153). In the 1944 aerial picture the Pando Estate
House Casa is attached to the west side of the archaeological building, a L- shaped mound 77 m
N-S, wider in the north extreme than in the South. In the northern section it 47 m long E-W. The
edification was composed by at least three superposed platforms. The site no longer exists today.
123
Figure 5-24. Partial view of the Maranga Valley Channel in 1944 (S.A.N.)
Figure 5-25. M-63 (Huaca Corpus I) in 2007.
124
Figure 5-26. M-63 (Huaca Corpus I) in 2007.
Figure 5-27. M-64 (Huaca Corpus II) in 2007
125
M-66 (Figure 5-28, 5-29 and 5-30) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board
with the number 65 (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:151). It is also known as "Huaca Culebra" (Ramos
de Cox 1974-75:10; Cox 1976:19). In the 1944 aerial photo the site looks like a small mound 24
m E-W and 16 N-S. The site was excavated by the Seminary of Archeology of the Catholic
University in 1972. It is a small building 1.9 m tall composed of several superimposed platforms
with three rectangular enclosures and other smaller rooms apparently for storing. These
enclosures are connected with each other and with the lower level through narrow passages and
staircases. In the building a pottery idol was found deposited as an offering (Ramos de Cox 1974-
1975; Cox 1976:19). The architecture is entirely made in rammed earth Class 1.
Figure 5-28. Partial view of the Maranga Channel Valley in 19444. (S.A.N. Project 340)
126
Figure 5-29. M-66 (Huaca Culebra) in 2007
Figure 5-30. M-66 (Huaca Culebra) in 2007. Ornamental staircase.
127
M-68 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as mound 64 (Bonavia et al.
1962-1963:150). In the 1944 aerial photo it looks like an elongated mound 7.5 m N-S in length
without visible architecture on the surface. The site disappeared completely.
M-69 (figure 5-31) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as 64A, although it
was not described (Bonavia et al. 1962-1963:152). In the 1944 air photo it is shown in the middle
of field 25 m north-south by east-west 27 m and a height of 2 m. The site was excavated in 1996
by the Catholic University under the direction of Mercedes Cárdenas, although inexplicably it was
called “Huaca 20A”. It was covered by modern trash along with earth and boulders covering a
surface of compact clay. In a pit made in this area an “aryballo” (Inca jar) appeared with a marine
shell and the jaw of a boy (Cárdenas 1997:7). The bodies of an adult and a child were also found
without offerings placed at the time when a layer of mud was deposited. That is why both burials
were considered possible human sacrifices. There was also a person placed in flexed position with
four pots, a jar and a few mollusks shells (Cárdenas 1997:10). Two offering deposits were also
found, one with 600 pottery sherds and the other with pieces of a pot and jars. The mud surface
was the seal of the edifice, composed of a central enclosure and a set of walls belonging to
successive reconstructions of the structure. Neither hearths nor domestic garbage were found in
the building (Cárdenas 1997:46). The walls of the building were rammed earth Class 1.
128
Figure 5-31. M-69 (Huaca 64A) in 2007
M-71 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 62 (Bonavia et
al. 1962-1963:147). Based on the 1944 air photo, the mound was 30 m long north-south by 27 m
east-west, with no evidence of surface structures. Ravines erroneously named it “Huaca Corpus
I” and points out that it was excavated in 1970 by the Riva-Agüero Institute of Archaeology and is
composed of three rammed earth walls enclosing an area filled with stones and earth (Ravines
1985:62). Vetter says that during the excavations funerary bundles and a corpse extended on a
litter was found, the last one from the Early Colonial Period (Vetter 2011:224). The site is now
inside “El Comercio” newspaper property.
M-72 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 63 and was
described as an amorphous mound without archaeological evidences on surface (Bonavía et al.
1962-1963:148). The site was excavated by the Riva-Agüero Institute, and funerary cone-shaped
bundles and other burials of the Early Colonial Period were found in the site (Olivera de Bueno
1971:67). The site was preserved until the 1990’s, distinguished by a thick wall of rammed earth
129
Class 1 on the west side of the mound. The site no longer exists due to the urban development of
the zone.
M-73 (figures 5-32 and 5-33) is known as the “Catholic Inca Road” because it is located in the
Catholic University Campus. The road runs in an E-W direction, 1 m in average width and 490 m
in length, and walled by thick rammed earth walls Class 1 and 2 m high. The road begins in the
east in a field between M-72 and M-74 sites, going toward the west reaching the northern part of
M-98 (“Huaca Tres Palos”). The 1944 aerial photo shows that the road continues, for about 2.4
km further east, although without the walls, ending at the Maranga Channel, north of the town of
La Magdalena. It is commonly believed, that this road connected Maranga with Mateo Salado
(Espinoza 2010: Fig. 2), but this is incorrect. An old photo of the road before the urban expansion
can be seen in Tello (1999:95). The road was affected in various ways through the time. In the
1970's, there was a high electric tower was built on it (Ravines 1985:51). In 1990 a section of 29
m was destroyed by the expansion of the University Avenue, which also meant the disappearance
of the M-72 (Huaca 63).
130
Figure 5-32. Partial view of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.).
Figure 5-33. M-73 (Catholic Inca Road) in 2012
131
The Maranga group is a set of huacas and walled spaces from different periods and cultures
that covers a very extensive area, 2 km north-south and 1.3 km east-west. In this thesis the sites
included in this complex are those designated by the codes from M75 to M-156, in the Valley of
Maranga, while the northern section is in the Valley of La Legua, from LL-57 to LL-76. The
name of this group was assigned initially by Villar (1935:192-202) and then by the Deliberative
Metropolitan Board (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963) because much of the site was in the fields of
Maranga estate, which picked up the name from the ancient seignory in the area. However, this
huge complex also comprised part of the neighboring estates of Aramburu, Concha, Rosario and
Pando. Other names used to call it were: "City of Huatica" (Hutchinson 1873), "City of Huadca"
(Middendorf 1894) and "Huaticamarca" (Tello 1999), names all wrong because those authors
confused the area with the Huatca or Huatica Valley located much more to the east.
M-76 was identified by the number 17 by The Deliberative Metropolitan Board (Bonavía et al.
1962-1963:76). The 1944 aerial photo shows the site in the middle of fields, 33 m N-S and 61 m
E-W, along with other small mounds (M-75, M-77, M-78 and M-79), all disappeared at the
present. Olivera de Bueno (1971:66) said that conical funerary bundles were found in this site.
M-77 (Figure 5-37) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 18
(Bonavia et al. 1962-1963:76). The 1944 aerial photo shows the site in the middle of the fields
without visible structures on surface. It is 34 m N-S and 33 m E-W. The site is still preserved and
has rammed earth, along with other structures made of boulders and reused Lima small mud-
bricks.
It was partially excavated by the Riva-Agüero Institute of the Catholic University. The
investigation recovered a female figurine 85 cm deep in the construction fill and covered with
132
pacay (Inga feullei) leaves (Belcore 1970:159; Obando 1970). However, there is no published
detailed report of this work.
M-78 (figures 5-34 and 5-35) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the
number 16, recognizing it as a mound of earth and boulders with some rammed earth walls, some
with evidence of niches (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:77). In the 1944 aerial photo, the site is in the
middle of fields and without visible walls on the surface. It is 55 m N-S and 27 m E-W.
M-80 (figures 5-38, 5-39, and 5-40) was called Huaca 19 by the Metropolitan Deliberative
Board (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:78) or “Huaca Potosí” because it was located in a pasture of the
same name of the Pando Estate (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Map 1). The 1944 aerial picture
shows the site in the middle of fields with a modern irrigation channel passing by its sides. It is
175 m N- S by 68 m E-W in the southern section where is wider than in the North, and 10 m high.
The huaca was excavated in 1987 by Sonia Quiroz, who found, under a modern layer of a
herdsmen occupation and modern garbage, an architectonic fill made of earth and boulders with
Late Lima and Nieveria styles sherds and burials from the Late Horizon Period (Quiroz 1997).
Below this fill there are Lima walls made with small cubic and cuboid mud-bricks, with mud-
floors and benches. Quiroz said that under this floor there are more walls from a previous
construction phase (Quiroz 1997).
In 2003 the site was excavated again, focusing the work on the top and south part of the
building. Unfortunately there are no known publications of this work and the edification remains
exposed. There are several Lima walls made with small mud-bricks, types D, C and B, which
would put the occupations of the site from the Early Intermediate Period to the Middle Horizon
Period Epoch 2. It is possible to see enclosures, access in the walls, long passages, benches and
plastered mud walls painted with yellow.
133
Figure 5-34. M-78 (Huaca 25) in 2007
Figure 5-35. M-78 (Huaca 25) in 2007. Walls made with small mud-bricks technique B.
134
Figure 5-37. M-77 (Huaca 18) in 2007
135
Figure 5-38. M-80 (Huaca Potosí Alto) in 2007
Figure 5-39. M-80 (Huaca Potosí Alto). Two construction techniques using small mud-bricks:
technic B (left), and technic D (right)
136
Figure 5-40. M-80 (Huaca Potosí Alto). Enclosure made with small Lima mud-bricks in technique
M-82 was called “Huaca 20” by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board, describing it as an
amorphous mound with rammed earth walls on one of the sides (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:80). In
the aerial picture of 1944, it looks like a small mound oriented SW-NE, 40 m long by 21 m wide
and about 3 m high (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000:590).
Between 1969 and 1972, the site was excavated by the Riva-Agüero Institute, which
discovered some rammed walls on the sides and on the top (Cárdenas 1970). In 1996, a new
investigation project began. Two superimposed fills were defined in the site (Rodríguez and
Cordova 1996). The higher was a closing fill, and the one below, an architectonic fill from the last
stages of the Early Intermediate Period, with a probable reuse of the site during the Late
Intermediate Period.
In 1999 the project resumed the excavations that continue until now. Actually it is a rescue
work because the University had projected an expansion of its infrastructure in this area. As a
result of this work there are several articles and theses (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000; Mac Kay,
137
2007; Mac Kay 2011; Olivera 2009; Pierce 2008). The site is composed of a mound, with late
rammed earth architecture. The surroundings, called “Domestic Area”, are composed of
dwellings, channels and burials in a sequence that reaches 1.3 m depth (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz
2000: 584).
The first two phases in the “Domestic Area” consist of simple double-row walls made of
boulders. Phase 3 consists of the construction of a channel after the abandonment of the site, with
92 burials installed in its proximity, which corresponded to adults and children. The corpses were
commonly set in an extended ventral position, although there are also some in a dorsal extended
position, seated or bent on their side. Their associations consist of mostly small decorated jars,
pots and musical instruments (panpipes and ocarinas), pottery miniatures, spinning wheels of
stone, bone or shell beads, grinding stones, and in some, conopas (ritual small figurines made of
stone) (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000:587).
Phase 4 consists of a rectangular structure with walls made of small cubic mud-bricks. Inside it
there are holes probably for poles for a roof. In phase 5 the previous constructions were covered
by a fill 40 cm thick made of earth, boulders, ash, coal, domestic waste and sherds. New
structures with small walls made of small cuboid mud-bricks and boulders in the base were built
over the fill (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000:588). Other structures in this phase with an
orientation 5° NW were found in the northwest side of the “Domestic Area” (Mac Kay and Santa
Cruz 2000:588). Phase 6 is another channel filled with a thick layer of green sand, mixed with
large amount of pottery sherds and sea mollusk shells. In association with the channel forty-three
funerary contexts were placed in shallow pits with the bodies oriented in the same way as in Phase
3, although figurines were included as funerary offerings (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: 588).
138
Phase 7 is a level with evidence of structures with an orientation of 46° NE, made of reeds or cane
and mud plaster over a leveled surface (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: 589, fig 5).
In Phase 8 the mound that is visible in the 1944 aerial picture was built. It had walls around the
perimeter of the mound made of boulders with a terraced profile of at least two steps on the north
side with an orientation of 30° NE. Two types of construction fills that gave volume to the
mound; the lowest is composed of coarse sand, boulders and a large quantity of pottery sherds. On
the west side some offerings were deposited, among them there are more than 15 gourds with
some food, guinea pigs, and four scarified children. The last fill was composed of clay, residues
of alimentation, and ceramic sherds. This fill served for the formation of the terraces. In this late
filling, pottery sherds of the Lima phases 7, 8 and 9, Chakipampa and Nieveria styles were found
(Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: 590).
Based on the preliminary analysis of the pottery it was proposed that phases 1 and 2 belong to
Lima (Patterson’s Lima phases 5 and 6), while phases 3 to 7 belong to Late Lima and Nieveria.
Phase 5 has a radiocarbon dating: 605-650 cal. AD and Phase 7: 690-780 cal. AD.
M-83 (figures 5-41) was named Huaca 20A by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board, a mound
of earth and boulders covering walls made of big mud-bricks (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:78). It is
located now inside The Park of the Legends Zoo and is known as Huaca El Rosal.
In the aerial photo from 1944, the mound is in the middle of farmlands and irrigation channels
that run by their sides. A modern enclosure made of rammed earth is located on the surface. The
mound has an irregular shape. Apparently, it is composed of a central body 80 m N-S and 64 E-
W. In its northwest extreme there is a prolongation of the mound to the west of 64 m in length. It
could be originally a ramp or stairway. This appendix is already destroyed.
139
M-84 (figures 5-42) was called by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board Huaca 31 and was
described as an elongated mound covered with earth and boulders without visible structures on
the surface (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:97). The aerial photo from 1944 shows the mound in the
middle of fields surrounded by modern channels. It is 214 m N-S and 42 m E-W.
At the beginning of the 1980’s the construction of a new National Museum of Archaeology
was projected in the area of the Park of the Legends Zoo. Although it was never finished, huge
amounts of soil were removed in order to build the basements of the Museum. In 1982 there were
some exploratory excavations of the terrain immediately east of M-84 which led to the discovery
of irrigation channels delineated with boulders, Lima walls of small cubic and cuboid mud-bricks,
and two burials, one with two infants inside a ceramic vessel that belongs to the Early
Intermediate Period, and a great quantity of pottery which has not been studied yet (Pinilla 1982).
In the cuts that were made during the constructions of the Museum, it is possible to see a
sequence of construction fills, composed of boulders, earth and sand, and walls made of cubic and
cuboid small mud-bricks (techniques C and D) (figures 5-42, 5-43, 5-44 and 5-45).
Figure 5-41. M-83 (Huaca 20A) in 2012
140
Figure 5-42. M-84 (Huaca 31) in 2012
Figure 5-43. Pre-colonial irrigation channel lined with boulders, eastward of M-84 in 2013
141
Figure 5-44. Irrigation cannel lined with boulders located eastward of M-84.
Figure 5-45. Cut exposed during the construction of the basement of the new Museum eastward of
M-84. There is a Lima wall made with small mud-bricks in technique D, a mud floor, and
architectonic fill.
142
M-85 was named by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “Huaca 25” and was described as
an irregular mound, on whose southern part had a low triangular platform delimited by walls of
rammed earth (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:88). The 1944 aerial picture shows the mound
surrounded by modern irrigation channels. It is 90 m N-S and 139 m E-W with a height of about 5
m. It is currently surrounded by modern homes. On the surface it is possible to see walls made
with small mud-bricks in techniques B and C.
M-86 (Figure 5-47) identified by Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 30 and
described as a mound formed by rammed earth walls intercalated with big mud-bricks and
boulders, which had been flattened by caterpillars (Bonavía et al.1962-1963:96). In the 1944
aerial picture it is already flattened and it is possible to see modern constructions on top. It is 62 m
N-S, and 98 m E-W, and is currently located inside the Park of the Legends Zoo. There are no
architectural elements on the surface, although some cuts in one side shows the remnants of
rammed earth walls Class 1 and architectonic fills composed by of earth and boulders.
M-87 (figure 5-48) was called “Huaca 32” by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board and was
described as a mound formed by earth and boulders that had some rammed earth walls (Bonavía
et al. 1962-1963:98). In the 1944 aerial picture the mound is located amid fields and has an
irregular shape. It is surrounded by modern irrigation channels, and several of them crossed over
the site. It is 238 m long from N-S, 125 m E-W, and 10 m high. In the middle part the mound is
narrow and is only 35 m wide. A recent cut made at the southern end allows one to see that it is
basically an accumulation of boulders and earth. Excavations made at the northeast extreme of the
site reveals Lima walls made of cubic mud-bricks.
M-88 the Metropolitan Deliberative Board called Huaca 33, and described it as a hill
completely covered with boulders and without visible architecture on the surface (Bonavía, et al.
143
1962-1963:100). In the 1944 aerial picture of 1944 this mound is attached to M-87 on the N-W
side. It measures 77 m N-S by 63 m E-W and 10 m high. On the top of mound there are some
walls made of small cuboid mud-bricks technique C. This site is currently being excavated by the
archaeologists of the Park of the Legends Zoo.
M-89 (Figure 5-49) was called by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board “Huaca 34” and
described it as a small mound with a modern hut on the top (Bonavía, et al. 1962-1963:101). The
1944 aerial picture shows a mound surrounded by modern irrigation channels and located in the
middle of cultivated fields. Two modern houses are at the top of the mound. It is 30 m N-S and 61
m E-W and 5 m high with some rammed earth walls Class 1. The site is currently being excavated
by the archaeologists of the Park of the Legends Zoo.
M-90 the Metropolitan Deliberative Board called “Huaca 35” and described it as a small
mound with remains of rammed earth walls and sherds on the surface (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:102). The 1944 aerial picture shows that several modern irrigation channels pass over the
mound. It is 87 m N-S by 80 m E-W.
144
Figure 5-46. Partial view of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)
Figure 5-47. M-86 (Huaca 30) in 2012
145
Figure 5-48. M-87 (Huaca 32) in 2007
Figure 5-49. M-89 (Huaca 34) in 2007
146
M-91 (figures 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, and 5-55) is known as Huaca Blanca Cruz (Ravines
1985:56) or Huaca 36 (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:103). In1965, the site was excavated and part of
its architecture exposed, although there are no reports of such works (Ravines 1985:56; Espinoza
2010:268).
The 1944 aerial picture shows the building very close to Maranga Channel that runs along the
east and south sides of the construction, and then goes to Maranga Pond. There are two large
sections, one on the west side with a pyramidal construction of at least three superimposed
platforms and several enclosures on the top, all made of rammed earth. The other section is to the
east and is lower than the first one. There are several rammed earth walls forming quadrangular
enclosures. A modern irrigation channel crosses diagonally this sector. The Metropolitan
147
Deliberative Board also distinguished these sectors naming “A” the pyramid, and “B” the lower
section (Bonavía et al. 1962 - 1963:103-104).
The pyramid comprises several construction phases. At the top there is an enclosure with
niches in the walls and benches attached to the walls with two construction moments and a semi-
subterranean large enclosure with mud-brick staircases in each of its corners. It is 26 m N-S and
12 m E-W (Espinoza 2010:284-285). There are other enclosures at different levels interconnected
by passages, accesses and staircases. There are also niches in different sectors. One of the early
construction phases on the north side has a double staircase attached to a rammed earth wall. In
the S-W corner of the building there is a visible thick construction fill with a large amount of
Lima small cubic mud-bricks. This fill covered an enclosure and staircase and it is the support of
new mud floors and rammed earth walls that raised the volume of the pyramid. Other walls in the
sides of the building are made of big mud-bricks that serve as fill containers or sealed accesses.
Figure 5-51. Satellite image of M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca) in 2012 (Google Earth)
148
Figure 5-52. South side of M-9 (Huaca Cruz Blanca).
Figure 5-53. M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca). Enclosure with rectangular niches at the top of the
Section A.
149
Figure 5-54. M-91(Huaca Cruz Blanca). Double staircase in the lower part.
Figure 5-55. M-91 (Huaca Cruz Blanca). SE corner of M-91showing architectonic fills with Lima
small mud-bricks.
150
M-93 was called “Huaca 43” by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:102).The site was excavated by archaeologists of the “Park of the Legends” Zoo. A huge cut
made by looters exposed walls made of small cubic mud-bricks in technique D, covered by a
construction fill with rammed earth walls in the exterior. It is 48 m N-S by 41 m E-W.
M-95 (figures 5-56 and 5-57) was initially identified by Middendorf and described as formed
by two mounds called 7 and 8 (Middendorf 1894:65). It is known as “Huaca 37” (Bonavía et al.
1962 - 1963:106-107) or “Huaca San Miguel” (Carrión and Espinoza 2007b). In the 1944 aerial
picture the building is surrounded on all sides by irrigation channels, some crossing over it. It is
241 m N-S and 247 m E-W. The Metropolitan Deliberative Board noticed some rammed earth
structures forming several platforms, with some walls painted in white (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:107).
Archaeologists of the Park of the Legends divided the building into the following sectors: 37A,
37B, 37C, 37D and 37E. The mound 37E comprises three sectors. Sector I is the southeast low
part of the mound, with some rammed earth walls. Sector II is the southwestern low part of the
mound, where the archaeologist José Casafranca made excavations during the 1960's, exposing a
series of small enclosures and passageways. Sector III is the most elevated and central part of
mound E and it was there where the archaeologists of the Park of the Legends made excavations
between 2003 and 2004 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007b:74).
Ten construction phases were detected in Sector III of Huaca San Miguel. The first nine belong
to the construction and use of the building, while the tenth is a late reoccupation after the building
lost status. The edification is characterized by the existence, during the fourth phase, of big
enclosures, one of them with niches on the walls that are connected through narrow and extensive
corridors, accesses, ramps and staircases. The enclosures changed constantly, adding benches and
151
sealing access until everything was covered with architectonic fills which served to raise new
floors and walls. Pottery found in the fills belongs to Lima, Late Ychsma and Chancay styles
(Carrion and Espinoza 2007b:81-82). This section is part of “Huaca San Miguel” and belongs to
the end of the Late Intermediate period and the beginning of the Late Horizon (Carrion and
Espinoza 2007b:110). This sector could be destined to perform specialized functions such as large
scale food storage, including perhaps its prior preparation, that may have been kept in large jars
placed in enclosures with concavities in the mud-floor for settling the jars (Carrion and Espinoza
2007b:111).
M-96 was called “Huaca 38” by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board and described it as a
large mound formed by rammed earth walls with sherds on the surface. On the platforms there are
enclosures made of rammed earth (Bonavía et al. 1962 - 1963:108-109). The 1944 aerial picture
shows the building in the middle of agricultural fields. It is 127 m N-S, 70 m E-W, and 10 m in
height. It is composed of at least 4 superimposed platforms. There are rammed earth walls Class 1
on the pyramid, forming rectangular and square shaped enclosures of different dimensions. On the
exterior sides of the building, there are rammed earth walls Class 2 oriented to 72° NE.
152
Figure 5-56. Satellite image of M-95 in 2012 (Google Earth)
Figure 5-57. South corner of M-95 (Huaca San Miguel) in 2012
153
Figure 5-58. M-96 (Huaca La Cruz) from M-98 in 2012
Figure 5-59. M-97 in 2013
154
M-97 (Figure 5-59) was called by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board “Huaca 39” and
described it as a mound of boulders and earth with remains of rammed earth walls (Bonavía et al.
1962-1963:110). In the aerial picture of 1944 the edification is just south of M-96 and separated
from it by a modern irrigation channel. It is 40 m long by 25 m and does not reach 5 m high. At
the top of the mound there are walls of rammed earth Class 1.
M-98 (figures 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, and 5-64) is known as “Waka Pando” o waka “La
Campana” because:
“…in times gone by, the Devil… managed to get hold of a bell, that by some magical
means had been brought to the top of this old fort. Some of the clergy, desirous of
getting it away, had dug round it for the purpose ; but the more they dug, the deeper
went down the bell, until probably it sunk, in the words of Milton, to that deeper depth
which, '' deeper than the deepest depths," is found below” (Hutchinson 1873:281-282)
Or: "…because, according to tradition, a golden bell was buried there, whose sound is heard in
full Moon nights, during certain months of the year" (my translation) (Segura 1948:89). The site
received also the names: "Huaca Maranga" (Angrand 1972:125), "Huaca of the Pond”
(Middendorf 1894:65) and "Huaca Tres Palos" (Three Sticks) (Cárdenas 1965). The Metropolitan
Deliberative Board assigned the number 40 (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:102). This huaca also
received the name "Huaca of Martín de Alcántara" (Cárdenas 1965:1) because it is commonly
known that a Colonial Period house at the top pyramid was "the House of Martín de Alcántara..."
155
(Hernández 2012:279). The 1944 aerial picture shows the building very close to the Maranga
Channel and a great reservoir called "Maranga Pond " still in use in that year.
Huaca Tres Palos is 207 N-S, 181 m E-W, and 20 m high. It consists of five superimposed
platforms, with several enclosures of different dimension and long corridors on the top. The main
entrance appears to be on the north façade, with a ramp 4 m wide and 66 m in length delimited by
rammed earth walls.
The first record of the site is a drawing made by Angrand in 1838 (Angrand 1972: LAM. 103).
One of the first descriptions and drawings was from Hutchinson (1873:283). He thought that it
might be a fortress called "Arambolu" (name taken from an estate located much more to the
north). It would have been presided over by the Chief Yunca Huachici, information collected,
supposedly from Cerdán y Pontero’s manuscript about the water administration in Lima
(Hutchinson 1873:276), although in that document (Cerdán y Pontero 1793) there is no mention
about those affirmations.
Middendorf said that it was a completely artificial building with a quadrangular shape, 135 m
per side and between 28 and 30 m in height with stepped sides and on the top of which there were
rooms and staircases (Middendorf 1894:65). He thought, erroneously, that it might be the
“Temple of the Rimac God” mentioned by Garcilaso de la Vega (Middendorf 1894:92). He also
published the first picture of the pyramid (Middendorf 1894: S92). In a document written by Julio
C. Tello, probably in the 1930's, this huaca is described as “Huaca of the Bell” or Huaca Pando,
that could be the residence of the “kuraka” or chief of the kamayocs (Inca officials), serving as a
depot for weapons, dresses and food (Tello 1999:81). However, this assertion was highly
speculative. He also believed that it was a fortress that defended the city from the south (Tello
156
1999:83). An old picture from the “Tello Archive” shows the huaca beside the reservoir full of
water (Tello 1999:95).
The site was excavated by archaeologists from the Riva-Agüero Institute from the Catholic
University after the 1960’s. Based on this work, Mercedes Cardenas presented her graduate thesis
focusing on the use of mud-bricks in the site (Cárdenas 1965). Cardenas described the site as a
pyramid with an irregular quadrilateral shape 161 m long by 150 m wide. The highest platform,
called “Platform A”, is 20 m from the ground level, with the remains of an L-shape Colonial
Period house made with mud-bricks (Cárdenas 1970:41).
The Colonial Period house was built over a large platform that covered a previous low
platform with a ramp in the central part, with 96 quadrangular cells, each with a vertical trunk,
and a small platform with another trunk stuck in the front. It has been proposed, that this part of
the building could have been an astronomical observatory (Ramos de Cox and Cogorno 1976:11).
A radiocarbon dating of one of the trunks gave 130 ± 80 AD. (Ramos de Cox and Cogorno
1976:12; Ramos de Cox 1970a: 61-62) but it is wrong because is too early. It has been speculated
that it could have been a calendar based on moon cycles and the movement of the Pleiades
(Ziolkowski and Zadowski 1992:45) but, so far, that proposal has not been proven (Hernández
2011:282). Ramos de Cox (1969) also speculated with the possibility that the building might be
the “Temple of the Rimac” or even a tambo, integrated into the network of roads.
Platform B is located to the North and is at a lower level. It is composed of a large square with
two rooms on the sides, and a large corridor that connects this part of the building with Platform
C.
Platform C, adjacent to Platform B, is composed at the southern end, of a set of orthogonal
layout enclosures with a small courtyard inside. To the North there are two large corridors,
157
associated with rooms and other rammed earth wall (Hernandez 2011:280). Finally, Platform D is
situated at the base of the building, and it is enclosed by thick rammed earth walls 4 m above the
ground level, with a series of rooms on the top which probably served as deposits (Cardenas
1965:47a; Hernandez 2011:280-281).
Sherds of Lima, Nieveria, Ychsma and Inca styles were found in the architectonic fills. Tall
and thin Ychsma pottery beakers with representations of human faces were found under the floor
of the Colonial Period house, next to a wall of the previous construction (Cárdenas 1965:142-143;
Buntinx 1970). Cardenas identified 8 types of mud-bricks in the site, discovered in the
architectonic fills, some wedge-shape, circulars used apparently for columns, and others with
marks in the form of crosses, fishes, points, and other (Cárdenas 1965:133-138).
Hernández (2011:282) argued that Platform A served for rituals or special events, and was
probably the most important part of the building. When the Incas arrived, the square and
quadrangular cells with trunks were sealed with a new platform and a staircase for access to this
platform. The square in Platform B also was sealed, as well as an enclosure with rectangular
niches with trunks in the floor probably put to support a light roof. In Platform C a new passage
was built in an E-W direction, ending in a stairway that gave access to the top of Platform B
(Hernández 2011:283). The depots in Platform D were divided with a wall that goes from north to
south. There were several of changes in the access and the supporting walls (Hernández
2011:283). The architecture is composed of rammed earth walls Class 1 for the enclosures and
passageways and Class 2 in the external sides of the pyramid.
M-102 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 44 and
described it as an elongated promontory of earth and stone with some remains of rammed earth
walls especially in the northern part (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:121). In the 1944 aerial photo, the
158
site is in the middle of the fields and has a very particular shape, which makes it quite different
from other archaeological mounds in the Rimac valley. It has an “I” shape 222 m long E-W and
100 m N-S. It was wider at the extremes and very narrow in the middle with only 16 m. Probably
it was a mound destined to raise the level of the channel that passes over it, rather than part of a
building. However, interestingly, the Metropolitan Deliberative Board noticed some rammed earth
walls on the site. In any case, it is impossible to know exactly the real nature of this mound
because it disappeared with the modern urban expansion in the area.
M-103 was another elongated mound oriented E-W 198 m long by 10 m wide. It is similar to
M-102. The 1944 aerial photo shows an irrigation channel over it.
Figure 5-60. 2012 satellite image of M-98 (“Huaca Tres Palos”) with the four superimposed
platforms and the main access ramp (Google Earth)
159
Figure 5-61. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Main access ramp to Platform B.
Figure 5-62. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Platform A.
160
Figure 5-63. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Passage and staircase in Platform C.
Figure 5-64. M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos). Platform D
161
M-104 was called by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “Huaca 42” and described it as a
small elongated mound with some remains of rammed earth walls on one side (Bonavía et al.
1962-1963:102). From the 1944 aerial photo, it is possible to know that the mound was 84 m E-W
by 23 m north-south. This site no longer exists.
M-108 – M-112 is a group of six small mounds without archaeological evidence on the surface
that were identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the name 41 (Bonavía et al.
1962-1963:117). In the aerial picture from 1944, those mounds are in the middle of the fields and
with an average length of 13 m.
M-113 (Figure 5-65) is a rammed earth wall located on an artificial hill that formed part of the
edges of Maranga Pond. It is 124 m E-W. It is currently located inside the Park of the Legends
grounds, south of “Huaca Tres Palos” (M-98) on a mound of earth without other architectural
evidence.
Figure 5-65. M-113 in 2012
162
M-116 is part of a walled road, a sort of extension to the north of the wall M-127 that closes
the great walled enclosure in the west. Canziani (1987) thought that that this road extended 1 km
more to the North, probably reaching the south banks of the Rímac River, where some chroniclers
argued about the existence of a suspension bridge. Actually, this information is not in the
chronicles but in Villar Cordova’s book (1935:202), although he did not indicate where he
obtained this information. He also confused this road with the coastal Inca Road (Qhapac Ñan),
which actually was located much more to the west. Espinoza (2010: Fig. 1) incurred the same
error because he argued that the road went to Makatampu and Chacra Puente. In the 1944 aerial
photo the walled road is only 214 m. The rest of the road, without walls, extends North-East for
about 1.25 km and ends in Argentina Avenue 1.25 km to the West of Makatampu (LL-15). There
is no evidence that the road continued more to the north.
M-114 was a mound located to the South of the pond Maranga. It had a central body of 100 m
long and 69 m East-West North-South. An Appendix Projected North measuring 45 m in length
that could have been an access ramp. This site no longer exists.
M-118 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “Huaca 56”, and was
described as an amorphous mound with some remnants of rammed earth walls, one of them with
40 x 40 cm and 30 x 30 cm niches (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:134). In the aerial picture the site is
in the middle of crop fields. It was 18 m length. The site is gone nowadays.
M-122 (figure 5-66) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “Huaca 61” and
described as an amorphous mound with some rammed earth walls and large amounts of fill
(Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:145). The 1944 air picture shows the elongated building 54 m long by
15 m wide. At the top of it, there is a rectangular enclosure of rammed earth walls. Canziani
163
called it "north building" with an elevated platform at the same level as an epimural passage in the
wall 55B (M-156). He speculated that it could serve to control the access of the “Great Walled
Enclosure” (Canziani 1987:12).
Figure 5-66. M-122 (Huaca 61) in 2012
M-123 is an architectural group attached to the Western Wall (M-156) of the Great Walled
Enclosure. In the 1944 air picture it looks quite deteriorated because the lands around it were
under modern agricultural activity. It is composed of two sectors, one in the north, the best
preserved, with a quadrangular enclosure surrounded by passages and narrow entrances. The
southern section was very badly preserved with several walls that formed small enclosures.
Middendorf considered this part a set of public buildings, one of which might be a prison with
cells for prisoners (Middendorf 1894:82). Tello called the area where this construction is located
“Enclosure X”. He made a very detailed map of this sector (Tello 1999:92). It was identified by
164
the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “Huaca 55”, describing it as a very destroyed sector,
although they could see several enclosures made of rammed earth walls, a ramp of 2.18 m, by 7
m, by 6 m, and walls with niches (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:137-138).
José Canziani called it "Inka Palace" and considered it as a building with several
reconstructions. He was the first to identify a double-jamb access, very characteristic of Inca
architecture, in this site (Figure 5-67). He also reported the discovery of Inca ceramics on the
surface. It is on a platform 2 m high with rammed earth walls that contain architectonic fills. The
platform, which lies at the same level as the epimural passage, communicates with this structure
through an access located in the northern section, while the ramp allows descent from the terrace
to the inner part of the “Great Walled Enclosure” (Canziani 1987:14-15). The rammed earth
walls in this site are Class 1.
Figure 5-67. Double-jam access in M-123.
165
M-125 (Figure 5-68) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “mounds 57
and 57A” (Bonavía et al. 1962 - 1963:140-141). In the 1944 air photo it is visible inside the Great
Walled Enclosure. It was very badly affected by modern irrigation channels that run along its
sides, and the area around the mound was used for modern agriculture. It is U-shaped and is 90 m
N-S and 232 m E-W. It is possible to distinguish two sections, one to the west, where the mound
reaches 5 m high, and another to the east where it also stands 5 m from the ground level. The
intermediate space between both sections is lower. A thick rammed earth wall is located at the top
of the mound. In the southwestern part there is a passage formed by another wall parallel to the
first one in this part.
Figure 5-68. M-125. Class 2 rammed earth wall.
166
Figure 5-69. The “Great Walled Enclosure” in the Maranga in 1944 (S.A.N.)
M-126 was named by the Metropolitan Deliberate Broad as “Huaca 50” and the southwest
section “Huaca 59” (Bonavía et 1962-1963131, 142). The 1944 aerial picture shows the mound
very badly affected by a series of modern channels that go through the sides and even cross it. I
was 110 m N-S, 200 m E-W and 5 m high, but without a definite shape.
The site had some painted murals. One of the designs seemed to represent two personages, one
of them playing a flute and surrounded by fish with serrated sides (Bonavía 1974:127-133).
Another painting also had a representation of fish along with human figures of different sizes
(Bonavía 1974:130-131; 1985:97 Ravines, Photo 8; Espinoza 2010:282-283). Today the mound is
preserved inside the Park of the legends, but there are no traces of the paintings (Figure 5-74)
M-127 (Figure 5-70) was mapped by Tello that he called it 'Group of the Prisons” in the
ancient "City of Watika marka" (Tello 1999:92). It was identified by the Metropolitan
167
Deliberative Board as “Huaca 54”, describing it as very destroyed, with some walls of rammed
earth that form at least one enclosure. They mentioned the existence of a 41 x 29 x 25 cm niche
in one of the walls (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:135). It is currently inside the Park of the Legends
Zoo. The architecture is of rammed earth walls classes 1 and 2.
Figure 5-70. M-127 in 2012.
M-129 in the 1944 aerial picture looks attached to the wall M-143. It consists of a series of
small quadrangular enclosures with long walls on platforms situated in the middle of the fields. It
is 20 m E-W and 16 m N-S, very destroyed by the expansion of croplands. It was identified by the
Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 53, registering a series of rammed earth walls,
some of them with niches measuring 40 by 40 cm and 30 by 30 cm (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:134). Nowadays, the site is inside the Park of the Legends Zoo.
168
M-130 (figure 5-71) in the 1944 air picture the mound is in the middle of the fields. Several
modern irrigation channels passed over the mound. It is 58 m E-W and 30 m N-S. Several
rammed earth walls, very ruined, can be seen on the mound. It was identified by the Metropolitan
Deliberative Board as “Huaca 60” (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:134). The rammed earth walls are
Class 1.
Figure 5-71. M-130 (Huaca 60) in 2012.
M-131 looks in the 1944 aerial picture as an amorphous mound, surrounded by modern
irrigation channels, and with some rammed earth walls on the surface. It is 80 m E-W and 54 m
N-S. The Metropolitan Deliberative Board considered it an eastern extension of “Huaca 60” (M-
130) (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:144). It is at present inside the Park of the Legends Zoo.
M-132 (Figure 5-72) is an amorphous mound 123 m long N-S by 90 m E-W, surrounded by
modern irrigation channels, with some of them passing over the mound. There is no architectural
169
evidence on the surface. The Metropolitan Deliberative Board considered it a northern extension
of “Huaca 58”, without an individual number (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:130). On the sides of the
building, there are rammed earth walls Class 2.
Figure 5-72. M-132 (Huaca 58) in 2012.
M-133 (Figure 5-74) was a mound 76 m E-W by 40 m N-S. The aerial picture from 1944
shows the mound surrounded and crossed by modern irrigation channels and with some rammed
earth walls on the south and the east sides of the mound. The Metropolitan Deliberative Board,
although recording the mound in a sketch map of the area, did not assign a number to this site. It
was destroyed in the 2000s with the construction of an artificial lagoon in the Park of the
Legends. One small section is conserved, as an island in the middle of the lagoon, with small
cuboid mud-bricks in Technique C. The archaeologists of the Zoo called it “Huaca 58B”.
170
Figure 5-73. M-133 in 2004, before the construction of the lagoon. On the background LL-75
(Huaca Midendorf).
M-134 was called by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board “Huaca 47” and described it as a
mound of square shape, 100 by 100 m surrounded by rammed earth walls (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:102). The 1944 Aerial picture shows an elongated mound with a NE orientation, and with an
extension to the north as an appendix. It is 245 m North-South and 99 m East-West. The mound is
currently inside in the Park of the Legends, although very altered because a botanical garden was
made over it. The central part of the mound is visible, approximately 1 m high with respect to the
current ground level.
171
Figure 5-74. Preserved section of M-134 inside the Park of the legends Zoo in 2012.
M-136 (Figure 5-75) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board as “mound 58”,
described as amorphous with some rammed earth walls forming enclosures. On the south side of
the mound they noticed some walls made of small adobe-bricks (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:142).
In the 1944 aerial picture the mound is beside a modern irrigation channel. It is 106 m East-West
by 19 m North-South. There are some rectangular enclosures and passageways made with
rammed earth walls Class 1. It was partially destroyed on the north and the east sides, and now is
inside the Botanical Garden of the Park of the Legends.
172
Figure 5-75. M-136 in 2012
M-137 (Figure 5-76) was called “Huaca 46” by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board and
described as a small rectangle, delimited by walls with remains of rammed earth and sherds on the
surface and located at the extreme north end of a rammed earth wall (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:123). The 1944 aerial picture shows the site attached to the north end of wall 46B (M-138).
Its 21 m North-South and 29 m East-West. The site is now preserved inside the Park of the
Legends, although very altered because a staircase was built in at the north front of the mound.
173
Figure 5-76. M-137 (Huaca 46) covered by a modern staircase and M-138 (Wall 46A)
Figure 5-77. M-138 (Wall 46 A) in 2012 after the conservation work
174
M-138 (Figure 5-77) was called "Wall 46A" by the archaeologists of the Park of the Legends.
The Metropolitan Deliberative Board located it in their sketch-map but did not assign a separate
number (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:124). The 1944 aerial picture shows this wall in the middle of
fields and very affected by modern channels. It is a rammed earth wall Class 2, 173 m long by 1.5
m wide. Currently, 93 m of the northern section of the wall is preserved inside the Park of the
Legends.
M-139 was a rammed earth wall visible in the 1944 aerial picture. It was 96 m in East-West
length by 1.8 m wide North-South. This wall no longer exists.
M-140 (Figure 5-78) was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number
45 and described as very small mound, pretty well destroyed with some rammed earth walls with
fine plaster (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:122). In the 1944 aerial picture the site appears surrounded
by modern irrigation channels and in the middle of farmland. It is 60 m long North-South and 53
m East-West. It is currently located inside the Park of the Legends Zoo but very affected by the
construction of gardens and a sort of viewpoint at the top.
175
Figure 5-78. M-140 in 2012
M-141(figures 5-79, 5-80, and 5-81) is known as “Huaca La Palma” (Middendorf 1894:82).
Middendorf considered it the most important construction inside the Great Walled Enclosure. He
mentioned a walled road leading directly to this building from the entrance located to the West
side of the Enclosure. Middendorf also recognized that the building had wall decorations in relief.
Julio C. Tello, in a document probably from the 1930’s, called it "Waka E" placing it inside a
compound that he called X. He described it as a large mound formed by overlapping rectangular
terraces contained by rammed earth walls. It is composed of three main buildings: a, b, and c. A is
the highest section of the building; b lies on a low platform on the north side with a series of
enclosures one of which has wall relief ornaments (Tello 1999:89, 93).
The Metropolitan Deliberative Board identified it with the number 48 and described it as a
large mound divided in three areas: A, located on the Southeast side, affected largely by a
construction of a modern house attached to the walls and made with rammed earth and late mud-
176
bricks 2.65 m high (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:126-127). Area B is a low mound. Area C is the
Huaca La Palma itself (Bonavía et al. 1962 - 1963:126-128).
The huaca was subjected to archaeological excavations by José Casafranca, Lorenzo Roselló
and Luis Cossi Salas, who discovered the architecture of the building during the 1960’s, although
there is no report of such work (Espinoza 2010:268).
Huaca La Palma is a stepped and truncated pyramid 126 m N-S length, 190 m E-W, and 15 m
high. It consists of a central and main body oriented to the northeast, with a first platform that
serves as a support to a rectangular courtyard 62 m long and 18 m wide, composed of two levels.
The highest, part is in the south and the access is through staircases. The courtyard ends in a ramp
used to access the first platform of the pyramid. At the top of the pyramid, there are several
rectangular enclosures with narrow accesses. In one of these there is relief decoration on the walls
with the representations of sea birds. The central body of the pyramid has some platforms located
at a lower level with rectangular enclosures, some of them with rectangular niches. In one those
enclosures there are reliefs on the walls with representations of stepped crosses.
Bazán (1990) suggests that probably this huaca was reconstructed during the Late Horizon
during the height of prestige of the Pachacamac Oracle because it had the shape of a “Pyramid
with Ramp” very common in Pachacamac.
177
Figure 5-79. Satellite image of M-141 (Huaca La Palma) in 2012 (Google Earth)
Figure 5-80. M-141 (Huaca La Palma). Friezes of stepped crosses.
178
Figure 5-81. M-141 (“Huaca La Palma”). Frontal view of the pyramid with ramp.
M-142 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 49 and
described as a small mound of earth with walls made with small Lima mud-bricks at the base and
rammed earth in the upper parts (Bonavía et al. 1962 - 1963:126-128).
M-143 (Figure 5-82) is a walled road that goes from the western access in the Western Wall
(M-156) of the Walled Enclosure to Huaca La Palma (M-141). It is 430 m East-West long by 10
m wide and was made with rammed earth walls. Fragments of this road are still preserved in the
interior of the Park of the Legends Zoo.
179
Figure 5-82. Preserved fragment of the walled road M-143.
M-147 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 51. It was part
of a square-shaped platform made with mud-bricks with an enclosure in the middle, and
passageways in the front and back (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:132). In the 1944 air picture it is in
the middle of the fields. It is 24 m N-S by 18 m East-West.
M-150 is a walled road that goes from the southwest corner of the road leading to Huaca La
Palma (M-143) to the south. The 1944 aerial picture shows a 154 m long by 8 feet wide section of
this road. The rest of it seems to have been destroyed by farmers. Canziani proposed that his road
might have been the same as a modern and parallel road located more to the east, so the road
could have had a stepped plan (Canziani 1987:12).
M-151 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with number 52, noticing an
archaeological dump on the surface with abundant decorated sherds (Bonavía et al 1962-
1963:132). The aerial picture from 1944 shows an elongated mound oriented NE with no visible
structures on the surface (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:133).
180
M-153, M-154, 155-M and M-156 are four large walls that delimit a space of about 400 m²
that is known as the Great Walled Enclosure of Maranga. The first to describe it was Middendorf,
who considered it the center of the city of "Huadca", with three entrances, one in the western wall
(M-153) and the other two in the northern wall (M-152). One of the entrances had two big cubic
blocks of rammed earth at the sides, leading to an L-shaped corridor, which Middendorf
considered it part of the defensive entrance to the city. This corridor no longer exists and the
entrance with blocks is damaged (Figs. 5-90 and 5-91). The walls are made of rammed earth and
reach a width at the base of 3 m, becoming thinner at the top, reaching between 6 and 7 meters
high. The most important building inside the enclosure is Huaca La Palma (Middendorf 1894:81).
Canziani calls it "the Great Walled Enclosure" with a quasi-rectangular shaped, 750 to 800 m
long and 500 to 600 m wide comprising an area of 44 hectares. He called the northern wall “55d”
and the eastern wall “55E”. In the southern sector, at least three parallel walls closed the enclosure
in this side. One of those walls extended towards the northern end of the Huaca La Palma (part of
M-136), Wall 55F and Wall 55A. The western Wall 55B is perfectly rectilinear, and it is
comprised by two parallel rammed earth walls with architectonic fill in the Interior. It has three
entrances that allowed access to the enclosure: one in the west and two in the north (Canziani
1987:11).
The 1944 aerial picture shows that the southern wall (M-153) had an "S" shape with a total
length of 800 m and looked very deteriorated by modern channels and crop fields. Currently a
section of 123 m is preserved in a park in the Maranga Urbanization. It is made with rammed
earth mud walls Class 1 and has two narrow accesses in the preserved section.
The eastern wall (M-154) has a slightly curved configuration. It is 542 m long and 5 m wide at
the base and 5 m high. Currently, a section of 521 m is preserved inside the Park of the Legends
181
Zoo. It is made with rammed earth walls classes 1 and 2 with accesses and attached structures in
various sectors. It was investigated between 2002 and 2003 by the archaeologists of the Park of
the Legends, who divided it into 4 sectors from South to North: A, B, C and D (Carrión and
Espinoza 2007a:36). The walls stood directly on the surface, without foundation, registering in
certain sections only a thin layer of gravel at the base (Carrión and Espinoza 2007a:42) It is
composed of two paralleled walls with construction fill in the middle of earth, gravel, and Lima
small adobe-bricks (Carrión and Espinoza 2007a:43).
Four construction events were detected. The first consisted only of the wall without attached
structures. Lima and Early and Middle Ychsma pottery styles were found in association (Carrion
and Espinoza 2007a:47). In the second event the West face of the wall a bench, identified in areas
B and C. Late B Ychsma pottery was found in the construction fills, so this phase belongs to the
Late Horizon Period (Carrion and Espinoza 2007a:49). The third event was a new wall attached to
the bench and parallel to the wall forming a path between walls. Remnants of this wall are
preserved in B and C sectors and must correspond also to the Late Horizon Period (Carrion and
Espinoza 2007a:49). The fourth event was an elevation of the path between the walls, which
would have involved also the sealing of the entrance corridor. At the same time, damaged areas of
the wall and bench were covered by a massive construction fill composed of earth and boulders,
in order to erect the attached structures. This fill contained the Late Ychsma B pottery style from
the Late Horizon (Carrion and Espinoza 2007a:49, 51).
The northern wall (M-155) is 712 m E-W with a winding configuration. Currently, a section of
674 m, quite deteriorated, is preserved inside the Park of the Legends Zoo (Figure 5-85). It is
composed of rammed earth walls Class 2.
182
The western wall (M-156) has a nearly straight configuration of 496 m SW-NE and has an
epimural road on the top. It has accesses to the southern part that leads to the east through a
walled road (M-143) to Huaca La Palma (M-141). It is made with rammed earth walls Class 1,
although in some sections there are big mud-bricks. Currently, a section of 312 m is preserved
inside the Park of the Legends Zoo (Figure 5-86).
Figure 5-83. M-153 (Southern Wall) in 2007
183
Figure 5-84. M-154 (Western Wall) in 2012
Figure 5-85. M-155 (Northern Wall) in 2012
184
Figure 5-86. Epimural road on the top of M-156 (Western Wall) in 2012
M-157 disappeared before the 1944 aerial picture was taken. It is mentioned several occasions
especially because it has relief friezes in its walls. Middendorf situated it in the southern part of
the city of "Huadca" outside the Great Walled Enclosure and attached to a wall in a sector that he
identified as "C". He also published a photo and a sketch map. It was composed of a large room,
open to the north, 22 m wide by 8 m deep, with its walls decorated with reliefs, which, according
Middendorf’s picture consist of several stepped crosses similar to those in Huaca La Palma (M-
141). The floor of the room was a little raised and ascended through some steps to a narrow
hallway, then coming to a spacious patio (Middendorf 1894:83-84).
M-157 was described also by Phillip Ainsworth Means, who saw the building during his visits
in 1917 and 1921. He located it erroneously one mile north of the pyramid of Maranga (M-98)
and called it "the House of the Chief". He described it as a platform closed by rammed earth walls
with reliefs, a corridor, and other secondary enclosures. According to his description, there were
185
traces of blue and brown paint in the reliefs (Means 1931:526-527). There is also a good photo
that shows some diamond-shape friezes on the front of the lower platform (Means 1931:217).
Tello published a picture of the reliefs and a sketch map that is the key to determine its
location (Tello 1999:91). It is called "Waka with bas-reliefs" and a picture of the wall with the
friezes shows that the structure was made, at least in part, with late large mud-bricks (Tello
1999:95). Villar (1935:200-201) named the site "Palace of Maranka" and located it in the southern
part of Maranga group.
M-164 (figures 5-87 and 5-88) is also known as “Huaca Casa Rosada” because on the top of
the mound a house was built (Ramirez 1974-1975:76), probably part of the San Jose Estate from
the first years of the Republic.
In the 1944 aerial picture the mound is surrounded by fields with the Republican house over it.
It has a quadrangular shape 48 m N-S and 47 m E-W. The Riva- Agüero Institute excavated the
site during the 1970’s. They found accumulations of domestic garbage from several periods of
occupation and rammed earth walls. The garbage had evidence of the Republican and Colonial
occupations (Arrieta 1974-1975). New excavations made during the 2000’s found more rammed
earth walls Class 1 defining enclosures on the top of the construction below the Republican
House, although there is no published report so far. During the Colonial-Republican times, the
four sides of the mound were reinforced with mud-brick walls and a staircase was built that goes
from the ground level to the house.
186
Figure 5-87. M-164 (“Huaca Casa Rosada”). The staircase is Colonial, as well as the mud-brick
walls built to reinforce the Pre-colonial construction.
Figure 5-88. M-164 (Huaca Casa Rosada). Rammed earth walls Class 1 at the top.
M-165 (figures 5-89 and 5-90) is known as Huaca Huantinamarca (Ravines 1985) or Huaca 67
(Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:156). In the 1944 aerial picture, this construction is in the middle of the
fields. It is 66 m N-S by 42 m E-W and 6 m high. In the picture it is possible to see an extension
of the mound towards the north that could be a ramp or main staircase to access the edifice from
187
the ground level. There are also several rammed earth walls that define enclosures on the top. The
walls have an orientation of 69° NE.
During its inspection, the Metropolitan Deliberative Board noticed several rammed earth and
mud-brick walls, passages and narrow accesses in the walls, found during some excavations made
by the Ministry of Public Education (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:155-156), but there are no known
reports of that work. Ravines, who maybe read that report, said that those excavations were made
in 1961 by Luis Cocci Salas (Ravines 1985:56). The site is basically a rammed earth platform
with four construction phases. The older one was at 3 m below the surface with mud floors and
very destroyed walls that could belong to Epochs 2B-3 of the Middle Horizon Period, although he
did not say why. The second construction phase is a corridor 1.10 m wide oriented E-W (Ravines
1985:56). The third phase is composed of platforms, quadrangular enclosures and narrow
passages. The fourth phase is the last stepped construction composed of four platforms: one on the
south side, two on the east, and one on the west. Over those platforms there are several enclosures
separated by patios and narrow corridors. In the central and highest part, there is a rectangular
enclosure with a central corridor and three quadrangular enclosures along the corridor. In the
construction fills from the first phase “Maranga” (Late Lima), pottery was founded. Below the
floors of the first and second phases 27 vessels of the “Huancho” (Late Ychsma) style and seven
human burials were found. Pottery and an oven from the Colonial Period occupation were also
found (Ravines 1985:56).
The site was excavated again and preserved during the 2000’s, when the area was urbanized.
Villacorta, who was in charge of those works, argued that the name “Huatinamarca” is modern
and is not the original name of the site (Villacorta 2010:31). The pottery found in the construction
fills and as offerings in the human burials found in the site belongs to the Late Ychsma A and B,
188
Chimu and Chancay but without evidence of Middle Horizon Period pottery as Ravines argued
(Villacorta 2010:55). Although he did not say how many construction phases there were, he
argued that were several, each one covering the previous ones with construction fills and
fragments of walls from the previous constructions in order to build new floors, walls and benches
(Villacorta 2010:37-41). The huaca was divided in four sectors: west, south, east and north
(Villacorta 2010:41). Four enclosures connected through an enclosure and an epimural road were
found in the western sector. Two of these rooms appear to be depots since they have no openings
for access. Before filling those enclosures, large pots were placed inside them as offerings. Inside
one of the vessels, microscopic analysis showed that it contained maize phytoliths, probably
because it was destined for maize beer store. Another of the vessels did not contain phytoliths, or
other microscopic components, and probably was not used for other proposes than offering. Large
circular pits that served to stabilize big vessels were found in another room. Graffiti, apparently
representing a maize plant, was found in another enclosure, which would indicate the linkage
between the huaca and the consumption of maize beer (Villacorta 2010:46). This sector had a
series of halls, two access openings and narrow passages, and in the south there is an epimural
road coming from the outside leading to a staircase that serves as access to a courtyard. The
excavations also uncovered Late Horizon and Early Colonial periods funerary bundles with
offerings of ceramics, gourds, and other instruments, some of them removed by treasure hunters
in Colonial and modern times. They were excavated in the western enclosure in the upper Sector
of la huaca when its se as an administrative center was canceled. (Villacorta 2010:10). The last
occupation was a Colonial Period house (Villacorta 2010:156).
189
Figure 5-89. Partial view of the valley of the Maranga Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)
Figure 5-90. Satellite image of M-165 in 2012 after the excavation and conservation works in the
site (Google Earth).
190
M-166 (Figure 5-89) is known as “Huaca Maranga”. It was located in the area where the
Pacific Fair was going to be built. In the 1944 aerial picture the mound is surrounded by
agricultural fields without walls visible on surface. It had an approximately circular shape 25 m
diameter. In 1961, due to the partial destruction of the site during the construction of the Fair,
Pablo Carrera, archaeologist from the National Museum of Archaeology, made a small rescue
excavation in the site. The report of that work indicates that the mound was 24 by 24 m and 2 m
high and was composed of a mix of earth, boulders and human bones. Excavation pits were made
in several places of the mound, although the work was interrupted by the sudden complete
destruction of the site during one night (Carrera 1961).
Ruth Shady analyzed the reports and artifacts collected by Carrera that were deposited in the
National Museum of Archaeology. I tried to located those artifacts and reports, but with the
exception of the field diary, the pictures, maps, drawings and artifacts disappeared. For that
reason Shady’s article is the best reference of this site (Shady 1982b).
The excavations revealed the existence of walls made of small hand-made spherical mud
bricks and lines of boulder disposed as a floor. Based on Carrera’s descriptions, it is possible to
conclude that the site passed through several construction phases. Each one consists of platforms
with enclosures and corridors on the top. The platforms were made with construction fill
deposited in grids. The pottery associated was identified as “chavinoid” (Carrera 1961). The
profiles that Shady published corroborate the existence of walls made of spherical mud bricks
(Shady 1982b: Lámina 3) as well as a sequence of 5 layers with the alternation of construction
fills of boulders and others of compact earth, with sherds in all those layers (Shady 1982b:
Lámina 2).
191
The pottery from the surface belongs to the late styles from the valley. There is also pottery
with incised decoration and some fragments assigned by Shady to the “White on Red” tradition
from the beginnings of the Early Intermediate Period (Shady 1982b:28).
M-170 is known about from an article published by Jorge Silva who noticed the finding of
archaeological artifacts during some civil works in the fifth block of the October 9th Avenue in La
Perla district (Silva 1989:66). In the 1944 aerial picture there is no evidence on surface that would
indicate an archaeological site, only agricultural fields. Silva collected 60 red and orange
diagnostic sherds, with rough surface finish from neck-less jars, jars and bowls (Silva 1989:68).
This pottery belongs to the Late Horizon Period when the area was under the Inca domination
(Silva 1989:69; Silva and Jaime 2005:31-32). Silva argues that the site could be related with the
Maranga seignory. Because there was no evidence of rammed earth or boulder architecture, it
could be a site with very simple houses made of reeds and mud like those described in the
Maranga Visit from 1549 (Silva 1989:71).
M-171 is known as “Bellavista Shellmound”. The first references to this site are from Charles
Darwin (1864:134-136) who described the site as a succession of red earth layers of mollusk
shells and sherds deposited over an artificial floor of boulders. He thought that some time ago,
when the ground level was much lower than in the present, the indigenous populations made
pottery, but during an earthquake the ocean flooded the area depositing mud with the sea shells
and mixed with the pottery sherds (Darwin 1864:370). Uhle (1906:12) said the site was composed
of layers of marine shells and ashes with sherds of pots with comma-rims and rocks arranged in
lines below a thick layer of fertile earth, to a depth of 1 m below the surface. Unlike Darwin, he
attributed a cultural origin to the association between the sherds and shells. Based on the comma-
192
rim sherds, it was assigned to the “primitive fishermen” period, the first one of the cultural
Peruvian sequence (Uhle 1998:236).
Based on Uhle’s description the site has been considered to be related to Chavin culture or the
Ancon style (Stumer 1954:141; Tello 1940:679, 1943:157, 1960:31; Willey 1951:128-129, 136,
139; Willey and Corbett, 1954:154; Cornejo 2001). Unfortunately, there has never been an
analysis of the artifacts recovered by Uhle, which are probably deposited in Germany.
5.5 The La Legua Channel Valley:
The La Legua Channel emerged from the Mother channel in the inlet called “Toma de Torre
Belarde”, which can be seen in the map from 1776 deposited in the Catalunya Library (BC, Ms
400, 116; Mattos-Cárdenas 2004: fig. III.14). The UTM coordinates are 276622 mE and 8667867
mS at 120 m.a.s.l. From this place the channel went towards the west for 200 m, turned to the
southwest for 1 km until the place named “Partidor” in Jochamowitz’s (1919) sketch plan where it
is joined to a secondary channel moving towards the SW. In this part two secondary channels
emerged from the main channel and moved towards the NW for about 1.7 km, along with several
tertiary channels that are very close to the mounds LL-1, LL-2, LL-3, LL-4 y LL-5.
Another two secondary channels seem to have emerged from the inlet located at the UTM
coordinates 275760 mE y 8667597 mS. In the 1944 aerial picture the area is highly urbanized and
the exact location of the inlet is not visible. A channel goes to the NW for 1.7 km, parallel to a
road of the estates, and then turns towards the west for 260 m disappearing in the agricultural
fields. West of this channel are located the mounds LL-6, LL-7, LL8 y LL-9 and the wall LL-10.
The other secondary channel moved toward the west for 560 m and turned to the NW
paralleling a road of the estates. Many tertiary channels emerged from this secondary branch
193
towards the NE. West of this channel Makatampu or Conde de las Torres archaeological group is
located composed of the pyramids LL-11, LL-12, LL-13, LL-14 y LL-15. Following the north
part of the channel there are the mounds LL-16, LL-20, LL-21, LL-22 y LL-26 and the small
pyramids LL-17, LL-18, and LL-19 (Huaca Chacra Puente).
Returning to the main channel, in the place called “Partidor” another branch emerged, a
secondary channel registered in the Jochamowitz’s sketch map, moving toward the estates
Mirones, Aramburu, Palomino and Rosario (Jochamowitz 1919: 376-377). This secondary
channel moved towards the SW for about 1.8 km until it reached the main channel of Maranga.
All the area located between this and the main channel of Maranga was irrigated by many tertiary
channels that emerged in a NE-SW and SE-NW directions from the secondary channels. In this
area the mounds from LL-34 to LL-52 are located, including LL-41 (Huaca Palomino).
From the inlet “Partidor” the channel of La Legua goes toward the west for 1.6 km until the
coordinates UTM 273988 mE y 8667121 mS. In this place, it turns towards the NW for 1.7 km,
and then turns to the SW for 1.5 km reaching La Legua town where the channel disappears. South
of this section there is a reservoir that in the 1944 aerial picture is barely visible but was registered
in the Unanue´s sketch map from 1801(Unanue 1801) and in the map of Camilo Vallejos from
1907 (Günther 1983: Map 22) in which it is named “Reservoir of La Legua”. West of this section
of the channel, there are many secondary channels leading in a SW direction and the mounds LL-
27, LL-32 and LL-33, and North of the channel the mounds LL-28, LL-29 and LL-30.
In the same place where the channel turns towards the NW, near “La Legua Reservoir”, one
secondary branch of the channel goes to the SW for 1.2 km. Several tertiary channels emerged
from this section in a SW direction. Many archaeological sites are distributed in this area: LL-34,
LL-35, LL-36, LL-37, LL-38, LL-39, LL-40, LL-41 (Huaca Palomino), LL-42, LL-43, LL-44,
194
LL-45, LL-46, LL-47, LL-48, LL-49, LL-50, LL-51, LL-52, LL-53, LL-54, LL-55 y LL-56, and
the archaeological mounds from the northern section of the Maranga group: LL-58, LL-63, LL-
66, LL-68, LL-69, LL-73 (Huaca 24), LL-76, LL-77, LL-78, the pyramids: LL-57 (Huaca 11),
LL-59 (Huaca Concha), LL-64, LL-65 (Huaca 9), LL-68 (Huaca 14), LL-71 (Huaca 23), LL-72
(Huaca 22), LL-74 (Huaca 26) y LL-75 (Huaca 21 o Huaca Middendorf) and the wall LL-60,
close to the NW corner of the pyramid LL-59 (Huaca Concha) where a reservoir was visible in the
1944 picture, a reservoir that was registered in Camilo Vallejos’ map of Lima from 1907 where it
is named “Rosario Pond” (Günther 1983: Map 22).
Following the course of the secondary channel, from the UTM coordinates 272921 mE and
8666912 mS it turns to the SW for about 0.9 km, and then turns again to the NW for 1 km until it
reaches the town of La Legua. In this place it bends to the west for about 150 m and then turns
SW for 1.4 km, beside an ancient road, feeding a pond appearing in Camilo Vallejos’ map of
Lima from 1907 as "Aguilar Pond" (Günther 1983: Map 22), until it disappears in the fields very
close to the mound LL-78.
The entire area west of this secondary channel towards Callao, Bellavista and the old Aguilar
estate, was irrigated by channels leading in SE-NW and NE-SW directions. It is a fairly large
space, but only two archaeological mounds are visible in the 1944 aerial picture, LL-79 and LL-
89. Further north, between La Legua town and the former Miranaves Estate there are several
tertiary channels of irregular course and following different directions. In this area, maps from
1907 and 1908 show a swamp known as "Puquios del Chivato" area (Günther 1983 maps 21 and
22). In the aerial photo of 1944 the complex can no longer be seen, only areas of cultivation and
many channels. East of this location, near the estates Villegas and Miranaves are now mounds
LL-81, LL-82, LL-83, LL-84, LL-85, 86-LL, LL-87 and LL-88.
195
Some authors mentioned the existence of a “Callao River” that emerged from the Chivato
lagoons reaching Callao (Regal 1961:4; Holmberg et al. 1990:92). This channel was registered in
the ““DESCRIPCION DEL PVERTO DEL CALLAO DEL PIRV” (Description of Callao Port of
Peru) of the Heliche Atlas from 1655 (Sánchez et al. 2004, map 70) and two maps of Lima from
1744 and 1907 (Günther 1983 maps 17 and 22). In the 1944 aerial picture there is no evidence of
that. This channel should be part of the La Legua system because the “Chivato lagoons” existed
because they were being fed by secondary channels from La Legua.
South of this place, between Bellavista and Callao, there were other lagoons registered by Paz
Soldán as "stagnant water” (Paz Soldán 1865), also known as “Blanco Lagoon” (Regal 1961:64,
67). In La Punta there was a small lagoon, an outcrop of salty water, named “Lagoon of the
Mugils” (Quiroz 2007:23). In the 1944 aerial picture those lagoons are no longer visible due to the
modern urban expansion.
La Legua channel, from its origin in the Torre Belarde inlet to La Legua town, was 4100 m.
Jochamowitz asserted that this channel from its origin to the division to Aramburu estate and La
Legua town was 2380 m and La Legua Valley extended over 1345.6 ha (Jochamowitz1919:377),
or 13.4 km². But, considering the total extension of the channel up to La Legua and the estates of
Villegas, Miranaves and the towns of Bellavista, Callao, and the fields of Chucuito and La Punta
that were channels that originated ultimately in the Legua irrigation system, La Legua Channel
Valley was much larger reaching 30 km².
Chart V-3 has a brief description of all the sites detected in the La Legua Channel Valley,
including the type of site, location based on their UTM coordinates and altitude, and their current
situation, and additional descriptions of the sites that have more information, especially those
where previous investigations were made.
196
Table 5-3. The La Legua Channel Valley archaeological sites
LL-1 - Mound - 275606 mE/8668352 mS 106 Disappeared
LL-2 - Mound - 275465 mE/ 8668170 mS 103 Disappeared
LL-10 - Wall - 274704 mE/8667556 mS 93 Disappeared
LL-11 Makatampu Small EI-MH- 274498 mE/8667739 mS 98 Disappeared
pyramid LI-LH
pyramid LI-LH
pyramid LI-LH
pyramid LI-LH
pyramid LI-LH
197
Table 5-3. The La Legua Channel Valley archaeological sites (continuation)
- Mound - 273339 mE/8668043 mS 70 Disappeared
LL-19 Chacra Puente Small LH 273078 mE/8668045 mS 66 Disappeared
Pyramid
198
LL-38 Mound - 274832 mE/8667040 mS 93 Disappeared
LL-41 Huaca Mound LI-LH 274649 mE/8666099 mS 83 Preserved
Palomino
LL-50 - Mound - 273814 m E/8666087mS 76 Disappeared
LL-57 Sector 11 Mound MH1 273365 m E/8666192 Ms 70 Heavily
affected
199
LL-59 Huaca Concha Mound - 273050 mE/8666247 mS 65 Heavily
affected
LL-60 - Wall - 273058.52 m E 65 Disappeared
8666411.44 m S
LL-61 - Road LI-EH 272699 mE/8666097 mS 60 Heavily
affected
LL-62 Huaca Pyramid EI-MH1- 272887 mE/8665933 mS 61 Preserved
Aramburú 2-LH
LL-63 Sector 6 Mound - 273070 mE/8665978 mS 68 Heavily
affected
LL-64 Sector 7 Pyramid EI-MH 273147 mE/8665903 mS 67 Disappeared
LL-65 Sector 9 Pyramid MH 273309 Me/8666012 Ms 70 Heavily
affected
LL-66 Sector 10 Mound MH1 273391 mE/8665920 mS 70 Disappeared
LL-67 Huaca 14 Pyramid LI-LH 273432 mE/ 8665722 mS 70 Preserved
LL-68 - Mound - 273497 mE/8665705mS 70 Disappeared
LL-70 Huaca 15 Mound - 273252 mE/8665710 mS 68 Disappeared
LL-71 Huaca 23 Pyramid EI-MH 273087 mE/8665731 mS 67 Heavily
affected
200
Table 5-3. The La Legua Channel Valley archaeological sites (continuaton)
LL-72 Huaca 22 Pyramid EI-MH 272973 mE/8665748 mS 66 Preserved
LL-74 Huaca 26 Pyramid EI.-MH 272952 mE/8665543 mS 65 Preserved
LL-75 Huaca 21 – Pyramid EI-MH 272727 mE/8665540 mS 60 Preserved
Huaca
Middendorff
LL-81 - Mound 269802 mE/8666852 mS 26 Disappeared
LL-83 - Mound 269616 mE/8667721 mS 26 Disappeared
LL-89 - Mound - 268805 mE /8666357 mS 13 Disappeared
201
Small Wall Road
Pyramid 2% 1%
7% Pyramid
9%
Mound
81%
Chart 5-5. Relative frequency of archaeological sites per type in the La Legua Channel Valley.
Heavily Preserved
affected 7%
7%
Disappeared
86%
202
Chart 5-6. Relative frequency of archaeological sites per current situation in the La Legua
Channel Valley.
LL-10 is a thick rammed earth wall, interrupted in several parts, 260 m in length by 1 m wide.
Tello placed it about 200 m east of Makatampu, a sort of epimural road (Tello 1999:120; Tello’s
report about Makatampu March 9th, 1935. Tello Archive. MNAAHP).
The Makatampu or “Conde de las Torres” group (figures 5-91 - 5-96) is composed of the
mounds LL-11, LL-12, LL-13, LL-14, and LL-15. The oldest reference to this site is on a map
made by Hipólito Unanue of the Colonial Period road between Lima and Callao (now Argentina
Avenue) where it is registered as "huaca" without further description (Unanue 1801). The name
“Macat Tampu” was given to this group in 1931, according to a report by Toribio Mejia Xesspe
without an explanation of its origin (Bazan 2008:10). The site was called "Macat" by Villar
(1935:166), who also did not explain why. In some old photos the site appears as "Mirones", the
name of a nearby estate (Tello 1999:120-123). In a Pablo Carrera report (November 22th, 1944,
page 1) deposited in the “Tello Archive” in the National Museum of Archaeology it is mentioned
as "Huaca Conde de la Torre" (which) carries this name from the former owner of this estate,
although the real name is MAKGAT" (my translation).
Quite possibly Makatampu is a modern name added the 20th century by Villar Cordoba, Carlos
Romero or Julio C. Tello, and that this is not the original name of the site (Narváez 1988:5; Bazán
2008:102). This name does not appear in any known Colonial Period document.
Tello in a report dated on March 9th, 1935 deposited in the “Tello Archive” mentioned that
Makatampu was part of an alleged city called "Watika Marka", and was composed of five
buildings: F (LL-12), D (LL-13), to (LL-14), A and C (LL-15), with building F more to the west
203
over a small terrace 1 m high. A map made at the same time registered all those sectors (Tello
1999:119).
In the 1944 aerial picture, the site appears very close to Argentina Avenue but in that year it
was already very affected by the demolition of the pyramids by the Wiesse Property Development
Company. There are three main groups: one on the east side (LL-11, LL-12 and LL-13), a
rectangular mound in the middle (LL-14) and an S-shaped mound on the west side (LL-15).
The destruction of the site caused the intervention of the staff of the National Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, under the direction of Julio C. Tello, who carried out extensive
rescue work, especially of numerous burials that appeared during the destruction. The product of
this work, reports, drawings, and photographs, as well as a very important archeological artifact
collection, especially ceramics, were deposited in the Museum and were analyzed for this thesis.
Figure 5-91. Makatampu Group in 1944 (S.A.N. Project 340)
204
LL-11 was located in the northeast part of the group. Based on the 1944 aerial picture, the
edification was 35 m E-W and 53 m N-S, although the southern extreme is quite destroyed and
should be more extensive. It was composed of at least three superimposed platforms and walls of
rammed earth. Some walls extend westward, but could be Republican. Tello’s sketch map
(1999:119) shows that it was indeed longer towards the south with thick and thin walls forming
enclosures with accesses.
LL-12 was located on the southeast part of the group. In the 1944 aerial picture, the edification
looks much destroyed in the north and west side. However, there are enclosures with straight sides
made of rammed earth walls. In Tello’s sketch map it was identified as "F".
The "F building" rose on a small terrace 1 meter high, 73 m long and 52 m wide, and had
several rooms with rammed earth walls. Tello argued that this was the "main residence" (Tello
1999:120). Old photos of this sector can be seen in Tello (1999:120-123).
LL-13 is located in the southwest extreme of the group. In the 1944 aerial picture the site
consists of a broad platform with some rammed earth walls and a modern structure over it. The
mound extends to the northwest, although that part looks much destroyed. In Tello’s sketch map
this sector is looks better preserved and consists of several walls forming passages and rooms, one
of which is very wide and projects towards the north, which Tello called "Central hall". It was 10
m high, 35 m long and 3 m wide, without accesses, and Tello thought that it might be a prison
(Tello 1999:118). In the aerial picture other walls can be observed that form other smaller
enclosures. Towards the west there is a big rammed earth wall named called "D" in Tello’s sketch
map, 64° NE that is the general orientation of all the walls visible in the 1944 aerial picture. Tello
considered this part of the site an area of warehouses, workshops, and special rooms, although he
205
did not specify why. He also asserted that rammed earth walls and rectangular mud bricks 0.47 by
0.24 by 0.12 m, formed the walls and platforms (Tello 1999:118).
LL-14 is located in the central part of the group. It is composed of a mound 98 m E-W and 65
m N-S. In the 1944 aerial picture there are some rammed earth walls to the north side of the
mound, as well as numerous holes on the surface, products of looting by treasure hunters. In
Tello’s sketch map, it appears as "B". It was named by Tello "Munao or necropolis", and he
noticed that it was made with rammed earth walls and small mud bricks and all the surface was
covered by human remains, cotton textiles, baskets and sherds (Tello 1999:118).
This was one of the sectors were the staff of the National Museum focused its work. Carrera in
his 1944 report mentions that the cuts made by the Wiese Company revealed rammed earth walls
and small mud bricks, as well as "...jars, chambers and graves" (fol. 3). “Chamber a”, 1.2 m high
by 80 cm wide, had a trunk at its thresholds and sherds in the bottom one of them with the
representation of a cougar in relief (fol. 2). He argued for the following occupation sequence at
this site:
"So far it is unknown with certainty what the true shape of this construction is, and
it is only corroborated that there are walls belonging to different periods. It is
believed that the oldest were painted in ochre yellow, that the unpainted small mud
brick walls were later, and that finally came all the fill that was constituted by the
waste, sticks, corn cobs, stones, fragments of simple ceramics, heaps of ashes, etc.,
This was the last layer" (fol. 4) (my translation).
206
In a diary of works on May 16th, 1945 it was registered that in the south side of the mound,
during the demolition, a mud floor was found on the ground level with walls of rammed earth and
small mud bricks. The walls were covered with earth and gravel fill in order to give support to
new floors. Over it, there were new mud brick and rammed earth in whose superior fill were
burials from the last period of occupation. The total height of the mound on this side was between
8 and 10 m.
With the advance of the demolition, Carrera noticed that the older building was built with
small mud-bricks and rammed earth walls on the natural soil of the valley one meter below the
surface. This building was buried in order to form a platform. The fill used was composed of two
kinds of materials: garbage, mixed with ashes and Nieveria sherds and, more or less, clean gravel.
On this landfill was a 10-20 cm thick mud floor, and another building made of small mud bricks
and rammed earth, whose unpainted walls were between 2 and 3 m thick. In a next phase, the
structures were covered by mud and gravel. Over this new fill was a new floor that partly covered
the walls made of small mud bricks. The next phase is composed of new small mud brick and
rammed earth walls and then a new fill was aggregated for a new mud floor and rammed earth
constructions. In this last fill the burials were found in three different levels. Those funerary
bundles that were deeper were bigger and much better elaborate than those in the superior levels.
The more elaborate burials were put in boxes made of reeds and textiles; the others were buried
simply without boxes. With the burials, there were pottery vessels, especially jars and pots,
pyroengraved gourds and silver artifacts like masks and beakers (Bazán 2010).
LL-15 is located on the western edge of the archaeological group. In the 1944 aerial picture the
site looks like an S-shaped pyramidal structure, with the highest part in the southwest side where
there was also a large looting hole. Towards the south and north sides there are several rammed
207
earth walls that formed small enclosures. In Tello’s descriptions, it was registered as sector "A".
The site has a lower extension in the northwest, which appears in Tello’s map as “C”, with a large
space surrounded by high walls where, according to this map, there were other small walls. The
building was 142 m N-S and 128 m E-W.
The walled enclosure is oriented 74° NE and measures 37 m E-W and 57 m N-S and 6 m high,
according to the Carrera’s report. The walls reach 1 m wide, and 4 m in height and, based on the
old pictures of the site, were made of rammed earth walls Class 2. Tello said that the upper part of
those walls had several jagged cuts, and inside the walled area, were remains of rectangular mud
brick walls (Tello 1999:118). Pablo Carrera pointed out in his November 22, 1944 report,
deposited in the “Tello Archive”, that the walls sit on loose terrain formed by boulders, small
Lima mud brick, ash and polychrome sherds. Within the fence there are also some constructions,
made of small Lima mud bricks at the base and rammed earth at the top. The walls of the
enclosure had other lower walls attached to the outside for reinforcement. When the fill that
covered the entire inner area of the enclosure was removed, Carrera could note the following
sequence: a layer of gravel mixed with guano, below it another layer composed of gravel mixed
with ashes and fragments of mud bricks. Finally, there was another gravel fill mixed with vegetal
remains that covered low walls made with small Lima mud-bricks.
The southeastern section, with a pyramid called "Mound A", was also intervened during the
rescue work. This was a pyramid made with Lima small mud bricks, while in the surface there
were rammed earth walls that formed small rooms (Tello 1999:118). Carrera asserted in his report
that during the demolition he noticed small mud brick walls, some of them painted in yellow
while others were unpainted, and benches, associated with “Cajamarquilla” (Late Lima-Nieveria)
208
pottery style sherds.. He also noted that some big jars (“cucumber” shape) (Late Ychsma) were
found intruding from small mud-brick architecture (Carrera’s Report fol. 2).
Figure 5-92. Makatampu picture (LL-11) circa 1917-1919 (MAAUNMSM).
Figure 5-93. Makatampu picture (LL-11) circa 1917-1919 (MAAUNMSM).
209
Figure 5-94. Walled enclosure at Makatampu (LL-15) circa 1917-1919, with rammed earth walls
Class 2 (MAAUNMSM).
Figure 5-95. Funerary box made of reeds and textiles with some pottery vessels as offerings in
LL-14 during the rescue work (MNAAHP).
210
Figure 5-96. Cubic small mud brick walls (technique D) during the rescue work at Makatampu
(MNAAHP).
LL-18 can be seen in the 1944 aerial photo in the middle of crop fields with a channel running
through its southwest side. It was 41 m long N-S and 40 m E-W. There were several rammed
earth walls that formed square or rectangular enclosures. The walls had an orientation of 67° NE.
A map of the site is in the Tello Archive (Tello 1999:125).
LL-19 (Figure 5-97) was known as “Huaca Chacra Puente” or “Paredones” (Tello 1999:124).
The site was already in the process of destruction in the 1940s by the brick factories that used the
earth of the site for mud-brick production (Tello 1999:124). A good map of site is in Tello
211
(1999:125). The 1944 aerial picture shows a pyramidal building made of rammed earth walls 54°
NE orientation. The building was 125 m N-S and 31 m E-W. It comprised a central body with five
superimposed platforms with the main access in the east side, where there was a rectangular
square 20 m in length. Continuing along this square towards the west there was a walled area with
a central access that went to a central staircase that gave access to a new square of 16 m ending at
a platform with another central staircase. There is a bench that leads to rectangular enclosures and
behind them, other enclosures and rectilinear open spaces. There is another platform 40 m long
with enclosures and wide corridors attached to the main body on the north side.
Figure 5-97. Partial view of La Legua Channel Valley in 1944 (S.A.N.)
LL-41 (figure 5-98 and 5-99) is known as Huaca Palomino because it was located on the
grounds of the old estate of the same name. The 1944 aerial picture shows a mound 63 m N-S by
212
71 m E-W and about 5 m high without surface walls or other structures visible on the surface. It
was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 68 (Bonavía et al 1962-
1963:158). The site was excavated in 1964 by the Riva Agüero Institute of the Pontifical Catholic
University, when the area was urbanized. The excavations defined Colonial and Republican layers
before a compact mud floor (Cardenas 1971b:61). It was argued that it could have been a public
and administrative center (Olivera 1971b: 67-68). It is a rammed earth platform 60 m N-S, 40 m
E-W and 3.5 m high with a great staircase discovered in 1964 during some clandestine
excavations (Ravines 1985:50). In 2012 the site was excavated and restored, but the results have
not been published yet.
Figure 5-98. LL-41 (Huaca Palomino) in 2007.
213
Figure 5-99. LL-41 (Huaca Palomino) in 2007. Staircase.
The northern section of Maranga Group was irrigated by channels that emerged from the
channel of La Legua. It includes from LL-57 to LL-78 m. (Figure 5-110).
LL-57 (figures 5-102, 5-103, and 5-104) has been known as “Huaca 11” or “Sector 11” (Silva
et al 1993:76). The 1944 aerial picture shows an elongated mound oriented SW-N 138 m long by
32 m wide, though quite altered by irrigation channels and cultivation fields. The site partially
was destroyed with the construction of the University San Marcos Campus in the 1950's.
However, in 1987 during the construction of the Faculty of Social Sciences building, small mud
brick walls were discovered below ground level. This led to a series of archaeological
excavations, keeping the place as an archaeological zone (Silva et al. 1993:78). The excavations
defined a sequence of 15 layers in which construction fields were alternated with mud floors.
Associated ceramics are Lima phase 9 and Nieveria styles and in the upper layers late pottery
styles from the valley (Jaime 1999 Fig. 2). In the top of the sequence there are structures made of
small mud bricks technique C and rammed earth, forming large enclosures, corridors and
214
platforms found in association with Nieveria style sherds (Guarisco 1994:111). One of these
platforms has large holes, which probably served to place big vessels.
LL-58 is a small mound for which there are no references in the literature. The 1944 aerial
photo shows the site in the middle of crop fields. It was 15 m N-S and 17 m E-W. It was
destroyed during the construction of the San Marcos University campus in the 1950’s. In 1993,
with the construction of the perimeter wall of the San Marcos Stadium of San Marcos near to the
place where it was located, I could see layers of archeological fill and garbage.
Figure 5-100. North Section of Maranga Archaeological Group in La Legua Channel Valley in
1944 (S.A.N.).
215
Figure 5-101. Satellite image of the same area in 2012 with the site that still existed in circles
(Google Earth)
Figure 5-102. LL-57 (Huaca 11) in 2005
216
Figure 5-103. LL-57 (Huaca 11). Lima small mud brick Wall in technique C in 2005
Figure 5-104. LL-57 (Huaca 11). Platform with holes for big vessels made with small mud bricks
in technique C.
217
LL-59 (figures 5-106 and 5-107) is commonly known as Huaca Concha (Hutchinson
1873:276). It was identified as "Hill 17" by Middendorf, who believed that it was just a pile of
stones and earth without walls on the surface (Middendorf 1894:87). Max Uhle made a map of
this huaca along with Huaca Aramburu (LL-62) at the beginning of the 20th century (Wurster
1999). Huaca Concha had several superimposed platforms that defined a central body with an
enclosure in the southwest and some walls in the slopes of the superposed platforms. Attached to
the main body there are two low platforms, in the northeast and the southeast corner.
In a document from the 1930s Tello called it “Yarowillca Temple”, but without saying why.
According to him, it was part of the ancient city of "Watika Marka" (Tello 1999:81). He also
believed that it was a fortress which defended the city from the north (Tello 1999:83). It consisted
of small semi-cubic mud bricks forming a giant honeycomb, whose cells were filled with earth,
debris and boulders. Given the accumulation of boulders at the top, he thought that they could
serve to be thrown as projectiles with slingshots. Erroneously he stated that it was 100 m in
length. (Tello 1999:84).
Villar (1935:195) called it "The fortress" because it was surrounded by three encircling walls,
consisting of thick rammed earth walls mixed with masonry.
Jijón (1949) named it "Second Huaca" and described it as a huge T-shaped construction
composed of overlapping pyramidal bodies. The lower platform was eight meters in height and
measured from north to south 284 m long and 102 m wide at the north extreme and 181 m at the
south. The terraces which were part of this first platform were identified by Jijón as “a”, “g”, “h”
and “k”.
On this first body there was another truncated pyramid, 20 m high, formed by terraces b and e.
The third pyramid reached 25 m in height. It only has one small terrace called “c” platform.
218
Finally, the fourth reached 26 m high and was separated from the former by a small depression,
the platform “d”. Jijón noticed the terraces located at the north were more extensive than the ones
in the south side, while the east and west slopes were very steep. In platforms g and h there was a
walled enclosure, 29 m N-S and 59 m from E-W. Jijón carried out some minor excavations,
finding in the first platform a fill composed of boulders that served to support the other platforms.
He also found late funeral bundles one of them in a box made of reeds and wrapped with textiles,
with a box for weaving tools, pottery offerings, gourds, and decorated textiles. Among the
ceramic fragments that he found there was an Inca aryballos’ puma head (Jijón 1949:148-149),
cooking pots, and a jar with a human head representation at the neck (Jijón 1949:150-151).
Kroeber also briefly described the site, and published a picture of the pyramid prior to its
destruction (Kroeber 1954: 20, fig. 7).
The huaca was partially destroyed in the 1940s with the construction of a stadium that was
attached to the eastern side of the pyramid. The 1944 aerial picture shows this destruction in
progress. Even with that, it is still possible to see in the picture the five platforms that made up the
central body of the building as well as the enclosure, although very destroyed, on the southwest
corner. According to the aerial photo, the building was 290 m in length North-South and 200 m
East-West. The destruction of Huaca Concha involved the demolition of the 3 upper platforms, so
nowadays the pyramid is only 10 m high. All the eastern flank of the pyramid served to support
the west grandstand of the modern stadium, while the dirt obtained from the demolition of the
structure, gave support for the south, north and east grandstands. There was no rescue work
during the demolition.
Between 1992 and 1994 the Stadium went through a series of reconstruction works. Two big
holes were made in the upper platform for bathrooms. The holes were 30 m long by 10 m wide
219
and 4 m deep. Funerary bundles were discovered in the south hole, accompanied with offerings of
gourds and ceramics, which were rescued by the students of archaeology from the University in
1993 (Silva et al. 1993:78-79; Echevarría 2004:47). Unfortunately there is no report of such
works. Pictures taken during the destruction show massive walls made with cubic small mud
bricks, techniques C and D, some of them painted in yellow and covered with large amounts of
architectonic fill composed of earth, sand and boulders that served as support for new
constructions (figures 5-108 – 5-111). The pottery collection recovered was deposited in the
School of Archaeology of the University nd was anlyzed for this thesis.
LL-61 (Figure 5-105) is a walled road heading from southwest to Northeast, located to the
west of the huacas Concha (LL-59) and Aramburu (LL-62). Apparently it was the continuation of
the road M-119 that came from north of the “Walled Enclosure” access, although it is difficult to
know that because there is no continuity between the two due to crop fields and Venezuela
Avenue. Based on the 1944 aerial picture, it was 434 m in length by 7 m wide. A badly preserved
section of 85 m is located inside the University of San Marcos Campus.
LL-62 (figures 112 - 118) is commonly known as Huaca Aramburu (Tello 1999:81), and since
the 1960’s “Huaca San Marcos” because it is now inside the Campus of that University (Fung
2004). Another name is Huaca Aramburu B (Ravines 1985:48). It was also called "Central Mound
of Pando" (Hutchinson 1873:276) and Middendorf identified it as “Hill 16” or "Huaca of the
Bell”, the largest and most important building of the group (Middendorf 1894:86-87).
Middendorf said that this huaca was composed of three sections: a central body that he called
“Hill 16”, and two platforms one attached to the SW that he called “Hill 18” and the other smaller
attached to the south that he called “Hill 19” (Middendorf 1894:80).
220
In 1903 Max Uhle excavated in the top of the pyramid uncovering a cache of big fragmented
pottery vessels, in a place that he considered a “Proto Lima” area of depots.
Figure 5-105. Preserved section of the walled road LL-61 inside San Marcos University campus
in 2007.
221
Figure 5-106. Huaca Concha (LL-59) in 1944 during the construction of the Stadium with the
platforms identified by Jijón (1949) (S.A.N.).
Figure 5-107. Huaca Concha (LL-59) in 2012 with the location of the north and south holes
(Google Earth)
222
Figure 5-108. Huaca Concha (LL-59) in 2012. Gardens in the south side of the pyramid.
Figure 5-109. LL-59. Huaca Concha. North Hole during the reconstruction work of the Stadium in
2003. Wall made in Lima small mud bricks technique D and architectonic fill (Photo: Lizardo
Tavera).
223
Figure 5-110. LL-59 (Huaca Concha). South Hole during the reconstruction work of the Stadium
in 2003. Lima wall made on small mud bricks in technique C and architectonic fills (Photo:
Lizardo Tavera).
Figure 5-111. LL-57. Huaca Concha. South Hole during the remodeling of the Stadium in 2003.
Core of the platform made of Lima small mud bricks in technique D (Photo: Lizardo Tavera).
224
In 1924 the Peruvian government put the “Foundation Company” in charge of the construction
of an avenue between Lima and the Callao Port. This avenue, called “Progress” and some years
later “Republic of Venezuela”, cut the pyramid in its southern extreme, destroying the most of the
platform identified by Middendorf as “Hill 17” (Kroeber 1954:17-20).
In a document of the 1930’s Tello argued that this huaca was the “Temple of the Sun” but
without saying why. This huaca was part of the “Group I” or section of the temples of the ancient
city of “Watika Marca” (Tello 1999:81, 83). Tello described the site as an edification made of
millions of small mud bricks, composed of four terraces, narrowing towards the top. Over the
superior platform he distinguished several enclosures with small mud brick walls, some of them
painted in yellow. In the surface there are pieces of pottery vessels, human remains and pieces of
textiles. He thought that it could be a 100 m high fortress (Tello 1999:85-87).
Villar (1935:192-202) called it "Aramburu", because it was located inside the estate of the
same name. He considered it as the "Greater pyramid", assigning it very exaggerated dimensions:
1 kilometer long and half a kilometer wide and 50 m high. He also said that the main façade was
on the west, overlooking the “San Lorenzo” island, and that it would be a temple or shrine with a
cemetery dedicated to the Sun due to the pyramid’s orientation (Villar 1935:194-196).
Jijón (1949: 99 - 147) called it “Huaca I”. He carried out some excavations in different sectors
of the edification, which led him to the discovered enclosures, one of them with the remains of its
roof and the other sealed with boulders in order to build a new floor of the next construction
phase, as well as pottery fragments and late burials associated with ceramic offerings in the
western platform called "Hill 18" by Middendorf.
Alfred Kroeber. Describes it as “…honeycomb of wall-structure of adobe bricksfilled with
rock, soil, maize leaves, and sherds” (Kroeber 1954:16). He pointed out that in the section that
225
was cut by the “Progreso Avenue” were, at a depth of 2 or 3 meters, sitting mummies and
mummies of children in extended position. He made some minor excavations, finding late burials
and “Proto-Lima” sherds in the architectonic fills (Kroeber 1954:14-19).
In 1953, as a result of the expansion of the facilities of the Naval Hospital, the Huaca
Aramburu was partially demolished on its west side (platforms 7 and 8), and what was left of the
south platform (called "Hill 19" by Middendorf) was removed, because the Peruvian Navy wanted
to use the debris for their works. The National Board of Archaeology authorized Marino Gonzales
and Vicente Segura to do some excavation in order to determine the archaeological nature of
those platforms (known as B and C then). They found, at the junction of platforms 6 and 7, a
stairway of 7 steps and a passage and, in the middle of Platform 7, an enclosure with a stepped
structure inside it that was considered a "shrine". In others areas they found only architectonic
fills. In the extreme southwest section of the south platform, adjacent to Venezuela Avenue,
bulldozers uncovered a large funeral bundle 1.90 high by 1 m in diameter that was deposited in
the Museum of Culture (Gonzales 1954).
This huaca was named by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 13, but
erroneously called “Huaca Concha” (Bonavía et al. 1962-1963:71).
Between 1963 and 1969 new excavations were made by the National University of San
Marcos, focusing on platforms 1, 2, 3, and 4. Based on this work, Pedro Alarcón wrote a thesis
arguing that the edifications had an architectonic sequence with three construction techniques
based on the use of the small Lima mud bricks. In the oldest one, called “Maranga” (Late Lima)
the mud bricks were disposed vertically over the smallest side: this he called “technique C”. In
the next phase, called “Tiahuanacoid”, the small bricks were put horizontally over the larger side,
226
and during the third phase, “Post-Tiahuanaco”, the small mud bricks were put in different
positions with lots of mud as mortar (Alarcón 1971).
These excavations led to the discovery of part of the architecture, human and animal burials,
and numerous archaeological artifacts. Besides Alarcon’s thesis and a small article (Fung 2004),
very little is known about the results of these excavations. Part of the recovered artifacts, as well
as some photographs and drawings, were deposited in the Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, and the facilities of the School of Archaeology of the university.
Between 1999 and 2002 there was a new archaeological project at the site. The new
excavations were focused on platforms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, discovering a great part of the
architecture of the pyramid as well as burials and archaeological artifacts (Narváez 1999, 2000;
Shady and Narváez 1999, 2001; Shady et al. 2001; Núñez 2003), although the complete results of
that work have not been published.
In the 1944 aerial pictures, Huaca Aramburu is in the middle of the agricultural fields with
Venezuela Avenue cutting the south side of the pyramid. Based on this picture, and the old maps
of Middendorf and Uhle, it could be described in the following way:
It is a pyramid composed of a rectangular central body defined by five superimposed platforms,
named from 1 to 5 from north to south. It is 368 m long N-S, by 141 m E-W in the north extreme
and 230 m E-W in the south extreme.
Platform 1 is a square 33 m N-S and 84 m E-W, with evidence of a small mud brick wall
encircling the extremes with a mud floor in interior and several vertical trunks as columns.
Platform 2 is 35 m North-South by 80 m East-West. The main access is in the middle and
connects to two passages, a ramp to the west and a zigzag corridor with a staircase that allows
access to the top of the platform, where several enclosures, passages and staircases are located.
227
Platform 3 is lower than Platform 2 and is located more or less at the same height as Platform
1. It is 40 m North-South by 60 m East-West. It is a courtyard with several trunks planted indoors
in rows that could serve to support ceilings. At the end of the platform, at its southern end, it is a
bench with a ramp located in the front and middle part of it.
Platform 4 is 22 m North-South and 58 m East-West and is located in a higher level compared
with Platform 3. It is composed of several enclosures with high benches attached to the walls
locates on the south sides. Inside the enclosures there are big holes with big Lima sherds from
large vessels and trunks planted as columns. There are also corridors and accesses that
communicate between them and Platform 3.
Platform 5 is the highest and more extensive. It is located south of the main body and is 100 m
North-South by 68 m East-West. On the top it has several large enclosures. Attached to the west,
and at a much lower level, it is Platform 6 with 202 m long North-South and 14 m wide where
numerous intrusive Late Ychsma funerary bundles were found. Much more to the west, and in a
lower level compared with Platform 6, is Platform 7, a huge platform 100 m wide East-West and
124 m long N-S, without archaeological artifacts on the surface.
Attached to the south extreme of the central body was Platform 8, the lowest and smallest
platform of the edification, destroyed by the construction of Venezuela Avenue and the Naval
Hospital. It is hard to determine the real dimensions of the platform because in the 1944 aerial
picture it was very incomplete. It was approximately, 56 m North-South and 61 m East-West.
The excavations made in the West Passage of Platform 2, allowed the discovery of an
architectonic seal composed of small Lima mud bricks, earth, and domestic garbage, including
many Lima, Nieveria, and Wari sherds and pyroengraved gourds and a Wari quipu from the
Middle Horizon Period Epoch 2 (Narváez 2000; Shady et al. 2001). The excavations in the south
228
slope of the huaca, adjoining Venzuela Avenue, uncovered several enclosures and corridors made
with small cubic Lima mud bricks in technique D and pottery from the middle phases of the Lima
Style. The collections from both sectors were analyzed for this thesis.
LL-63 is known as "Huaca 7" (Silva 1990; Silva et al. 1993:76). The 1944 aerial picture shows
a Z-shape mound surrounded by crop fields. It was 81 m long N-S and 17 m wide E-W. Silva et
al. (1993:76) indicated much exaggerated measures for this building: 100 m E-W by 30 m N-S,
and suggested that it could have served to close the northern section of a large square located east
of Huaca Aramburu (Silva et al. 1993:76). This huaca was demolished during the construction of
University of San Marcos Campus. However, in 1988 some excavations made in the area where
the building was located, uncovered part of the architecture and a sequence of 6 layers composed
of construction fills and abundant shellfish, especially in the sixth layer. Sequence analysis
indicated that there were two phases of occupation: The oldest is a floor and a wall made of small
Lima mud bricks, technique C, and the second by an architectural fill composed of boulders and
abundant mollusk shells (Silva 1990).
229
Figure 5-112. LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu (S.A.N. Project 340)
Figure 5-113. Huaca Aramburu (LL-62) in 2007.
230
Figure 5-114. Huaca Aramburu (LL-62). North side of Platform 2 in 2007
Figure 5-115. Huaca Aramburu (LL-62). Staircase towards the summit of Platform 2. The walls
are made of small mud bricks in Technique B
231
Figure 5-116. Huaca Aramburu (LL-62). Platform 2 summit. Walls made of small mud bricks
technique B and big mud bricks.
Figure 5-117. Huaca Aramburu (LL-62). Platform 3 access. In the background, the bench and
ramp.
232
Figure 5-118. Huaca Aramburu (LL-62). Southern slope. Small brick walls in Technique D.
LL-64 was identified by Middendorf as "Hill 20 ", a mound with terraces made with mud
bricks (Middendorf 1894:86-87). Kroeber wrote that from this mound the best pieces in the
collection of some “Mr. Lott” of the Foundation Company were extracted during the construction
of Venezuela Avenue (Kroeber 1954:20). In the 1944 aerial picture the mound can be seen in the
middle of the fields and affected by the irrigation channels. It is composed of a central body of
rectangular shape with an extensive appendix extending from the southwest corner that could be
an access ramp to the pyramid. It was 188 m long N-S by 62 m wide E-W. The huaca was
demolished with the construction of the Campus of the University San Marcos in the 1950's.
233
LL-65 is known as Huaca 9 (Silva et al. 1993:78). In the 1944 aerial picture it looks like a
pyramidal structure of at least three superimposed platforms with a large hole on the top, probably
from ancient looting. Several Irrigation channels crossed the lower platform, and it is completely
surrounded by agricultural fields. It had a rectangular shape, 120 m N-South and 80 m E-W with a
long extension as an appendix in the southwest corner that might be an access ramp to the
pyramid. The huaca was demolished with the construction of the University San Marcos Campus
in the 1950's. Silva argued that this huaca could be the "20 Hill" of Middendorf (Silva et al.
1993), but I think it is not. Middendorf’s Hill 20 is LL-64.
In 1991 due to removal of earth made by students of the Faculty of Biological Sciences in a
garden that was approximately in the middle of where the huaca was, small mud brick walls were
discovered, along with Lima sherds (Figures 5-119 and 5-120). The School of Archaeology, made
excavations from 1992 to 1996 (Silva 1993; 1997). The pottery recovered in these excavations
was analyzed for this thesis. Based on the reports of the excavations (Silva 1993, 1997), the
following sequence in the site can be proposed:
The first construction phase is composed of two walls made of small Lima mud bricks in
technique C, one from South-West to North-East and the other from South-East to North-West,
without plaster, forming a corner. The base of those walls was not discovered, and it is unknown
if there were previous occupations.
The second occupation consists of two parallel walls made of small mud bricks in technique C,
ranging from southwest to northeast associated with a floor of mud that defines, apparently, a
passage. The wall to the south sits directly on architectonic fill composed of layers of compact
soil and boulders with sand that covers the north and east sides of the walls of the first phase. The
fill that covers the south side of the wall of the first phase is composed of boulders and sand with
234
walls made with reused small mud bricks and boulders lined up together with mud as mortar,
forming a grate to hold the fill.
The third occupation consists of an architectonic fill that covers the passage of the second
phase. This fill is composed of boulders, sand and loose soil. It contained abundant fragments of
pottery style Lima and a lens of mollusk shells. This fill served as support to new structures of the
building that were no longer possible to identify because they were destroyed with the demolition
of the building in the 1950's.
The last occupation is composed the superficial layers, when this area was used as a garden. In
these layers there are also Lima sherds, although mixed with modern waste.
Figure 5-119. LL-64. Huaca 9. Wall made with small Lima mud bricks in Technique C from the
second phase
235
Figure 5-120. LL-64. Huaca 9. Walls from the first occupation phase, made with small Lima mud
bricks in technique C.
LL-66 known as Huaca 10 (Silva et al. 1993:76), in the 1944 aerial picture the mound is in the
middle of crop fields, very close to Venezuela Avenue, and badly affected by modern irrigation
channels. It measured 60 m North-South by 57 m East-West. Silva et al. (1993:76) gave
exaggerated measures: 140 m from North-South and 70 m East-West. It was demolished during
the 1950’s due to the construction of the San Marcos University Campus. In 1991, during the
reparation of some pipelines in the area, some small mud bricks and sherds were found, and it is
possible that some walls could exist underground (Silva et al. 1993:78).
LL-67 (Figure 5-121) known as Huaca 14 (Bonavía et al. 1963-1964:75), Huaca San Miguel
(Ravines 1985:50), and Huaca Miguel Grau (Espinoza 2010:293). Ravines (1985:50) erroneously
said that the site belongs to the Middle Horizon Period. The 1944 aerial picture shows the
building among crop fields. It was 89 m N-S by 45 m E-W and 10 m high, and it is composed of
two superimposed platforms. A rammed earth wall, Class 1, in the east side of the edification has
a 70° NE orientation.
236
Figure 5-121. LL-67. Huaca 14. Rammed earth walls Class 1.
Figure 5-122. Partial view of La Legua Channel Valley in 1994 with the sites LL-71 (Huaca 23),
LL-72 (Huaca 22), LL-73 (Huaca 24), LL-74 (Huaca 26) y LL-75 (Huaca 21 o Middendorf)
(S.A.N. Project 340).
237
LL-71 (figure 5-123) is known as Huaca 23 (Bonavía et al.1962-1963:86). In the 1944 aerial
picture the site lies in the middle of fields, south of Venezuela Avenue. It measured north-south
100 m by 98 m east-west. The building seems to comprise a central pyramidal body with a curved
appendix in the southwest corner that could be an access ramp. The site is preserved today,
surrounded by modern houses. It is covered entirely by boulders and earth, although, it is possible
to see some walls made with small Lima mud bricks, techniques B and C.
Figure 5-123. LL-71 (Huaca 23) in 2007
LL-72 (figures 124 and 125) was identified by Middendorf as "Hill 23 ". He thought that it was
only a pile of earth and stones, removed from exhausted land to clear fertile land for agriculture
(Middendorf 1894:89). The Metropolitan Deliberative Board assigned the number 22 (Bonavía et
al. 1962-1963:86). The 1944 aerial picture shows the site surrounded by fields partially cut in the
north side by Venezuela Avenue. It is 103 North-South by 92 m East-West and 10 m high. The
cut shows the core of the building made of small mud bricks, technique C.
238
Figure 5-124. LL-72 Huaca 22 in 2007
Figure 5-125. LL-72 Huaca 22 in 2007
239
LL-73 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 24 (Bonavía et
al. 1962-1963:86). In the 1944 aerial photo the site looks affected by modern irrigation channels
and agricultural fields, with no visible walls on surface. It was completely destroyed.
LL-74 was assigned the number 26 by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board and was described
as a mound formed by the accumulation of boulders. A high esplanade is located in the south and
another, much lower, in the north, where a small cut exposed walls made of rammed earth and
small Lima mud bricks (Bonavía et al.1962-1963:90). In the 1944 aerial picture, the mound is in
the middle of the fields with channels along its sides and several looting holes on the surface. It
seems to be composed of two superimposed platforms with an appendix on the NE side that could
be a staircase or ramp as a main access to the pyramid. It measures 146 m N-S, 79 m E-W and 10
m high. On the surface, there are walls made of small Lima mud-bricks in techniques B, in
combination with small rammed earth walls, and C.
LL-75 (figures 5-126 – 5-128) was identified by Middendorf as "Hill 15" (Middendorf
1884:86). The Metropolitan Deliberative Board called it "Huaca 21". It was also known as "Huaca
Aramburu A" (Ravines 1985:48), but the most common name is Huaca Middendorf, named by the
archaeologists of the Park of the Legends.
Middendorf acknowledged that the site was “kidney” shaped, with steep slopes built by
millions of small mud bricks and two terraced platforms, the largest in the west, which he called
"Hill 18", and the other in the south, which he called "Hill 19", a probable cemetery due to the
presence of several skeletal remains on the surface left by looters (Middendorf 1894:86).
In a document from the 1930’s, Tello called it the “kidney-shape Huaca” or “Temple of the
Moon”, although without saying why. It was part of Group I or section of the temples from the
ancient city of “Watika Marca” (Tello 1999:81).
240
In the 1944 aerial picture, the pyramid is in the middle of the fields and surrounded by modern
irrigation channels. The SE section is the highest, reaching 20 m, with a small appendix on the NE
corner that could be a ramp. This section has an extension towards the NW reaching 10 m high.
The edification has 300 m long North-South and 230 m East-West.
Jijón identified two pyramids that he called “Third Huaca” or “Huaca N°3”, and “Fourth
Huaca” or “Huaca N° 4”. The continuous growth of both edifications finally joined together on
the west side, built with small mud bricks of different shapes and sizes according to the
construction phases of the edification. It was composed of several platforms of different heights,
A, B, C, D, and E, with the highest at the extreme south (Jijón 1949:4). He made excavations in
several parts of the edification finding very complex superimposed architectonic phases from
different periods. Unfortunately, the cuts and descriptions that he published are very confused
Based on the summary of an old article by Jijón published by Villar (1935:199-201) and in
what Jijón published (Jijón 1949:6-8, Plano III) the following sequence could be established in the
deepest excavation that he made (Jijón 1949:5):
1) At the bottom of the excavation there was a terrace over the natural surface (Jijón 1949:7,
Plano III). In the profile of the same excavation published by Villar, it is said that this
construction was made with small round bricks that he called “odontiformes” (tooth-shaped), the
first pyramidal construction (Villar 1935:199).
(2) Garbage that covered the previous structure containing "Nieveria pottery" (Villar 1935:199).
(3) A new construction made with small cubic mud bricks (“Second Pyramidal Construction”).
(4) A new layer of garbage.
(5) Layer of ashes.
6) Layer of garbage
241
(7) Architectonic core of small, rounded and somewhat cuneiform shaped bricks.
(8) A platform made of small cuboid mud bricks (Third Pyramid Construction).
(9) Layer of garbage.
(10) Layer of earth with organic garbage that served as a cemetery for Proto-Lima people with the
corpses placed in a horizontal position.
11) Lima Platform made with small bricks (fourth pyramid construction).
(12) A, architectonic fill containing burials with ceramic type Chancay.
(13) Late construction of rammed earth walls with decoration (fifth pyramidal construction).
(14) Layer of earth and rubble with some burials covering the previous structures (Jijón 1949:10).
Among the most notable findings, there is a reed boat 10 m long, folded over a rush mat in a
layer of garbage associated with a wall made of small mud bricks from the Second Pyramidal
Construction (Jijón 1949:16; Plano IV). The “Proto Lima” burials with the corpses in horizontal
position with pottery vessels, spindle whorls, reed baskets, fine textiles as slingshot, and trophy
heads.
The pottery discovered in the construction fills belongs to the middle and late phases of the
Lima sequence, as well as Nieveria and Wari from the Middle Horizon and in the late burials,
pottery from the Three-color Geometric, Chancay and Middle and Late Ychsma.
Kroeber also excavated in this pyramid en the 1920’s. He called it “Huaca 15” as did
Middendorf. He made some small test units in the southwest terrace and a big unit in the lower
terrace where he found a “Proto-Lima” cemetery in a layer of garbage composed of earth,
boulders, small cubic mud bricks, organic remains and sherds (Kroeber 1954:23). Fifteen burials
were recovered, in extended position, with the heads oriented towards the south and north,
242
disposed over stretchers made of sticks and reeds, tied up with ropes, and wrapped with textiles
(Kroeber 1954:32, Figs. 18, 19 and 21).
In 1992 Juan Paredes discovered four trophy heads on the surface of the site, one of them
complete. Apparently, they fell from the upper part of the pyramid (Paredes 1998, 1999).
LL-76 was identified by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board with the number 27 and was
described as an amorphous mound with evidence of a rammed earth wall (Bonavía et al. 1962-
1963:93). In the 1944 aerial picture the site is located in the middle of the fields.
LL-77 was identified by the Metropolitan deliberative Board with the number 29 (Bonavía et
al. 1962-1963:94). The 1944 aerial picture shows a very much destroyed mound surrounded by
agricultural fields and modern irrigation channels, without evidence of architecture on the surface.
It was 20 m NE-SW and 59 m long NW-SE.
LL-78 was identified by the Metropolitan deliberative Board with the number 28, (Bonavía et
al. 1962-1963:94). It was a very small mound in the middle of the fields, measuring 14 m N-S and
15 m E-W without any evidence of architecture on the surface.
LL-89 was called “Huaca Aguilar” (Villar 1935:177). It was demolished in the 1930’s and the
dirt was used as fill for the inner harbor in the Port of Callao (based on Carlos Romero
declarations to “El Comercio” newspaper, September the 14th, 1938; Ravines 1985:96). In the
1944 aerial picture it looks very destroyed and between a road of the old estates and Venezuela
Avenue.
243
Figure 5-126. LL-75 in 1944 with the sectors and platforms identified by Jijón (S.A.N.)
244
Figure 5-127. LL-75 in 2012
Figure 5-128. LL-75 in 2012. Rammed earth walls class 2 in the west slope of the pyramid.
245
5.6 A general view of the area of investigation:
Table 5-4. Places irrigated by La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels (Cerdán
1793:83-85)
Channel Places
Molino Santa Rosa, Huerta de Torresilla, Hornillo,
Common (Mother channel) Boca de Cuero (Laso y Vega) y Molino de
Monserrate.
Acuña (Conde de la Vega), Abujero de Abusco o
Pejerrey (Huerta de Laso), Chacra y Molino de
Gato, Ayesta y Azcona (Molino de Gato), Quita
Calzón, Arostegui o Ayesta, Azcona, Pando,
Quevedo, Toma de Azcona, Tambillo, Sarricolea,
Vazquez, el Paulino, Santiago de Cueva, Alvarez
de Espinosa, Santiaguillo, Caycuegui, Llano y
La Magdalena Orcasitas, Flores, Aguilar, Oyague, Bengolea,
Melgar, Laja, Pueblo de la Magdalena, Chacra de
los Exercicios, Olivar, Tierras de Irujo, Huerta del
Convento, Gobernador del Pueblo, la Beata,
Orbea, Barrera, San Miguel, Chamorro y los
Indos, Chacra del Gobernador, Boquilla del
mismo, Núñez, Villalta, San Cayetano, Huertesilla
por Boquilla.
246
Table 5-4. Places irrigated by La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels (Cerdán
1793:83-85) (Continuation)
Channel Places
Chacras del Mayorazgo de Ríos, Cueva,
Maranga Amirola, Guisla, Larrea, Chacras de Pando,
Tierras de las Huacas de los Indios,
Maranga, Maranguilla, Quevedo, Chacra
Alta (con un puquio para regar las otras
tierras baxas), Aguilar, Namamuel
Rosas, Conde de las Torres, Conde de la
La Legua Vega, Puente, Legua, del Conde de S.
Xavier y Casa Laredo, Concha, Aramburu,
Mirones, Palomino, Boquilla de Aguilar,
Tierras del Rosario
La Legua y puquios Mira-naves, Ormazabal ó las Ánimas,
247
Table 5-5. Places irrigated by La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels based on
Miguel de Oyague y Sarmiento 1795 (Coloma 1989:65-66)
Valley Places
Conde de la Vega, Toma de Lazo, Molino
La Magdalena de Gato, Chacra del Molino, Chacra
Colorada, Chacra de Pando, Chacra de
Ascona, Chacra de Paulino, Chacra de
Cueba, La Buenamuerte, Chacra de
Ollague, Laxa, Los Exercicios, Chacra de
Orbea, Barrera, San Miguel, San Cayetano
Maranga Chacra de Ríos, Cueba, Pando Molino,
Maranga, Chacra Alta, Aguilar, Nabamuel,
Las Huacas
Chacra de Rosas, Conde de la Vega, Conde
La Legua de las Torres, Chacra de Puente, La Legua,
Concha, Aramburu, Mirones, Palomino
248
Table 5-6. Places of the valleys of La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga channels
(Jochamowitz 1919)
Valley Places
Conde de la Vega, Huerta de Lazo, Molino
La Magdalena de Gato y Chacra Colorada, Ascona,
Paulino, Buenamuerte, Oyague y Melgar,
Colmenares, San José y San Cayetano, San
Miguel.
Maranga Chacra Ríos, Las Huacas, Maranga,
Aguilar, Rondón, Pando, Cueva
Jardín Camal, Conde de las Torres,
La Legua Villegas, Aramburú, Rosario, Palomino,
Mirones, Concha, La Chalaca, La Limeña,
Aguilar, Chacra Puente
Table 5-7. Comparative chart between the valleys
Artificial Valley Area (Km²) Number of sites Sites per Km²
Common 0.7 - -
La Legua 30 89 3
Maranga 13 172 13
La Magdalena 7.8 77 10
Total 50.8 338 7
249
La Common
Magdalena valley
valley 2%
15%
Maranga
Valley La Legua
25% valley
58%
Chart 5-7. Relative frequency of area per valley
La
Magdalena La Legua
23% 26%
Maranga
51%
Chart 5-8. Relative frequency of sites per artificial valley
250
Table 5-8. Distribution of sites per current situation in the area of study
Current Situation La Magdalena Maranga La Legua Total
Preserved 1 49 6 56
Heavily affected - 9 6 15
Disappeared 76 114 77 267
Total 77 172 89 338
Preserved Heavily
17% affected
4%
Disappeared
79%
Chart 5-9. Relative frequency of sites per current situation in the area of investigation
251
Table 5-9. Distribution of sites per type in the area of investigation
Type of site La Magdalena Maranga La Legua Total
Mound 71 129 72 272
Pyramid 1 13 8 22
Small pyramid 4 6 6 16
Wall - 18 2 20
Road 1 4 1 6
Midden deposit - 2 - 2
Total 77 172 89 338
Small Wall Road Midden

pyramid 6% 2% deposit
5% 0%
Pyramid
6%
Mound
81%
Chart 5-10. Relative frequency of sites per type in the area of study
252
CHAPTER 6
Pottery Analysis
6.1 Objectives and method of investigation:
The pottery analysis was made in order to establish the chronological and cultural associations
of the archaeological sites identified in the La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua channel
valleys. Ten unpublished collections, deposited in museums and universities recovered from
research projects, in some cases sixty-five years ago, were analyzed for this thesis, comprising
3543 specimens, between diagnostic sherds and complete and partially complete vessels and
figurines.
The first task was to select the diagnostic specimens according to the following criteria:
complete or partially complete vessels (at least with the 50% preserved), decorated fragments of
bodies, and fragments of rims and bottoms, complete enough to determine orientation and
diameter without doubt. Figurines and panpipes were also chosen. The objective of this selection
was to keep those specimens useful to establish types, phases and styles. Fragments of bodies
without decoration, handles, bases and decorated fragments of very small dimensions were not
selected. The descriptive analysis of each specimen was made using Excel tables prepared for this
purpose with 43 variables. The description of colors of pastes, slips, and painting was carried out
using the Munsell Color chart and the degree of hardness on the Mohs scale. The names of the
styles were the ones that are mostly used nowadays: Ancon, Lima, Nieveria, Pativilca, Wari
(Chakipampa and Pachacamac), Three-color Geometric, Ychsma and Chancay. Technical
drawings of each specimen analyzed were made in pencil, and the final version in CorelCad, and
photos of each analyzed specimen were taken. A specific typology was established for each style,
253
with each type identified by the name of the style and type of specimen followed by a number,
because not every described type in the previous studies was found in the analyzed collections,
and conversely, not every type defined in the studied collections was found in the previous
typologies (See Appendix A).
The results of this part of the analysis were contrasted with the information of the provenance
of the analysed specimens in order to establish the distribution of the identified types according to
the sites and specific contexts. Statistical analysis of the worked collections was done, especially
to determine the percentage distributions of styles and types and the frequency in which those
types appeared in the sites (See Appendix B).
Published ceramic specimens from sites located in the area of investigation were analyzed
using the descriptions, and particularly, pictures and technical drawings, comparing them with the
typology previously established in order to identify styles and types, and the cultural and
chronological association of those sites (See Appendix C).
A comparative analysis was made between the analyzed collections with collections from other
sites that have been published. For the determination of phases the following sequences were
used: Hermilio Rosas’ sequence for the Ancon style (Rosas 1970), Thomas C. Patterson’s
sequence for the Lima style (Patterson 1966), the classification and sequences for the Wari pottery
made by Dorothy Menzel (1964) and Francisco Vallejo’s sequence for the Ychsma style (Vallejo
2004). The comparative analysis was also made with published collections of other sites in the
Central Coast, and in the case of Wari, with other parts of the Peruvian coasts and highlands (See
Appendix D).
254
6.2 Terminology:
A very important aspect of the pottery analysis was to use an appropriate terminology for a
correct identification and description of the specimens. Unfortunately, there is chaos in the
terminology used by different authors who worked on Peruvian pottery collections, because each
author used his or her own terminology, sometimes contradictorily with others.
Instead of assume one of those terminologies, this investigation opted to establish its own
based on mathematical criteria for the description of the shapes.
Four main groups were identified in the archaeological material analyzed: vessels, figurines,
musical instruments, and modified sherds. The vessels are those hollow in their interiors, with one
or more openings. The figurines are hollow or solid sculptural representations of humans,
camelids, dogs or birds without openings. Musical instruments are those pottery artifacts intended
to produce sounds. Modified sherds are fragments of vessel bodies carved for other uses like
spindle whorls or pottery smoothing tools.
Two groups of vessels were recognized: open vessels and closed vessels. Open vessels are
those in which the maximum diameter of the body is less than the diameter of the mouth. The
following types were defined: dish (when the height is less than a third of the diameter of the
mouth), open bowl (when the height is between a third and the total diameter of the mouth), and
beaker (when the height is more than the half of the diameter of the mouth). Closed vessels are
those in which the diameter of the body is greater than the diameter of the mouth. The following
types were defined: closed bowl (when the height of the vessel is equal to or less than the
diameter of the mouth), pot (when the diameter of the joint between the neck and the body, or
only the mouth if there is no neck, is between a half and the total height of the body. If there is a
neck, the mouth diameter is more than half of the neck’s height), jar (when the diameter of the
255
joint between the neck and the body or only the mouth, if there is no neck, is the same or less than
the half of the total height of the body; if there is a neck, the mouth diameter is more than the half
of the neck’s height), jug (it has the same characteristics as the jars, but it is characterized by one
big vertical strap from the body to the rim), and bottle (when the diameter of the mouth is less
than half of the neck’s height. It could be: simple, stirrup-spout, double-spout or double-body).
Based on the orientation of the walls, vessels’ necks can be vertical, convergent or divergent.
On the basis of its shape, they can be straight, concave or convex. The profiles of the necks result
from the combination of both criteria: vertical-straight, vertical-concave, and vertical-convex;
convergent-straight, convergent-concave, and convergent-convex; divergent-straight, divergent-
concave and divergent-convex. When the neck has two or more different profiles it is a composite
neck. In vertical necks, the diameter of the mouth is equal to the diameter of the body-neck joint.
In convergent necks the diameter of the mouth is less than the diameter of the body-neck joint and
in divergent necks the diameter of the mouth is greater than the diameter of the body-neck joint.
6.3. The Ancon Pottery Style:
This is the oldest pottery style in the Peruvian Central Coast and, chronologically, it is located
in the Initial and Early Horizon periods. It was first defined in the hills south of the Bay of Ancon,
about 30 km north of the Rimac River Valley. Although several sequences have been postulated
for this site (Lanning 1960, Matos 1962, Scheele 1970, Patterson 1968, Patterson and Moseley
1968) the best one was established by Hermilio Rosas, who divided it into 10 phases, based on
controlled excavations made in the hills located south of the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970).
The Ancon style is mainly characterized by the presence of monochrome neck-less pots. This
kind of pot is distributed, in several pottery styles, in a wide area of the country, from the Initial
256
Period to the Early Horizon Period, between the Chicama River Valley in the north and the Acari
River Valley to the South, as well as in the northern and central Peruvian highlands (Lanning
1967:85-87). Other forms are dishes, opens bowls and bottles (simple and stirrup-spout), although
no bottle specimens have been found in the area of investigation. The main decorative techniques
are incision and punctation. In some cases, post-fired paint was added in the incisions to produce
a better contrast with the background (see Appendix A). During Ancon Phase V, in the Early
Horizon Period, Ancon style received strong influences from the Janabarriu phase pottery from
Chavin de Huantar located in the Peruvian Northern Highlands.
In the area of investigation, specimens of this style were found in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa in
the Maranga Channel Valley during the rescue excavations performed in the 1970’s.
Unfortunately, because the reports of that excavation are lost, it is impossible to know the exact
associations of those specimens. Another site with this style is Huaca 9 in La Legua Channel
Valley, where only one Ancon sherd was found in a removed layer of the surface (see Appendix
B), and in Huaca Pacific Fair in the Maranga Valley Channel (see Appendix C). The comparative
analysis of those collections indicates their association with the phases VI to VII of Rosas’ Ancon
sequence during the first half of the Early Horizon Period (See Appendix D).
6.4. The Topara Pottery Style:
This style, originally from the Peruvian South Coast, expanded to the Central Coast during the
end of the Early Horizon Period and the first 4 epochs of the Early Intermediate Period. In the
area of investigation it is mainly characterized by the existence of monochrome double-spout-and-
bridge bottles (See Appendix A). A sequence of the “Topara Tradition” was established for the
South Coast by Wallace and Lanning (Menzel 1971), and it is used in this investigation, along
257
with other local sequences in the Central Coast where pottery of this type is present (Palacios
1988; Silva and Garcia 1977) (See Appendix D).
The analysis of this style in the area of investigation was made based on a collection from M-
141 or Huaca La Palma in the Maranga Channel Valley, unfortunately without a report of their
provenances (see Appendix B). Pretty similar vessels were also found in the area of the old Pando
estate in Maranga Channel Valley (see Appendix C). Comparative analysis indicates similarities
with Topara bottles from other parts of the Central and South Coast (See Appendix D).
6.5. The Lima Pottery Style:
This style emerged on the Peruvian Central Coast in the Epoch 5 of the Early Intermediate
Period and lasted until the Epoch 1A of the Middle Horizon Period. It is mainly characterized by
pots, jars, and open and closed bowls painted with geometric designs in black, white and red over
the orange or light red natural background of the vessel. There are also pots, jars and open bowls
made in a brown ware without decoration and usually covered with sod (see Appendix A). Many
names have been proposed for this style, but the best definition and sequence was established by
Patterson (1966) who divided it into ten phases, recognizing several wares, shapes, and types of
decoration. The ten phases have been usually grouped into three periods: Early Lima (Lima
phases 1-3), Middle Lima (Lima phases 4-6), and Late Lima (Lima phases 7-9) (Guerrero 1998;
Segura 2004)
In Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7), Middle and Late Lima pottery was found in association
with constructions made of small cubic mud bricks. From Makatampu (LL-14) there are only two
Middle or Late Lima vessels with no exact information about their provenance, although probably
associated with burials. In Huaca Concha (LL-59) Middle and Late Lima sherds were found in the
258
fills that covered Ychsma burials of the Late Intermediate and Late Horizon periods. In Huaca
Aramburu (LL-62) Middle Lima pottery was found in the architectonic fills associated with
constructions made of small cubic mud bricks in Technique D in the southern slope of the
building, and Middle and Late Lima sherds were found in the superficial layers that covered the
old Lima constructions. Some Late Lima sherds were found in the Western Passage of the
Platform 2 in an architectonic seal associated with Wari and Nieveria pottery, and other artifacts
of Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period. In Huaca 9 (LL-65) Middle and Late Lima sherds were
found in the architectonic fills and superficial layers in association with Lima construction made
of cuboid small mud bricks in technique C (See Appendix B and D).
Late Lima sherds were found in Ychsma architectonic fills in Huaca Santa Miguel (M-95) (See
Appendix C).
6.6. The Nieveria Pottery Style:
This style emerged in the Peruvian Central Coast during the Middle Horizon Epoch 1A and
lasted until Epoch 2 B. It is characterized by jars, pots, bottles, and closed bowls, with thin walls
made in an oxidized compact ware. It is usually highly decorated with geometric designs in red,
white, and black, and also sculptured figures of persons, animals, and fantastic creatures. It has
several names, although the best definition was made by Menzel (1964) who also divided it into
two phases: Nieveria, for the Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon Period, and Derivative Nieveria, for
the Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period.
Some Nieveria sherds came from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7). In Huaca Concha Nieveria
sherds were found in the layers that covered the Ychsma burials. In Huaca Aramburu (LL-59)
Nieveria sherds were found in the superficial and removed layers of the southern slope of the
259
pyramid and in the Western Passage in the Platform 2 in association with Wari pottery of the
Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period. In Huaca 9 one sherd was found in a superficial and
removed layer and another in a construction fill of a Late Lima construction (see Appendix B). In
Huaca 21 some Nieveria sherds were found during a superficial collection (see Appendix C).
Nieveria vessels were found as funerary offerings in burials associated with irrigation channels
around Huaca 20 (M-82) and Huaca 31 (M-84), as sherds in constructive fills and superficial
layers in Huaca Aramburu (LL-62) and Huaca Middendorf (LL-75) (See Appendix C).
6.7. The Wari pottery styles:
Wari comprises several styles that expanded through the Central Andes during the Middle
Horizon Period (Menzel 1964). In the Central Coast these styles arrived in the Middle Horizon
Epoch 1B and lasted until the Middle Horizon Epoch 2B (AD 800-1000). The Wari styles that
existed on the Central Coast were Pachacamac, and Chakipampa, although other styles, like
Huarpa Terminal, Pongora, Viñaque, Huamanga, and Wari Derivative have been also proposed
(Lumbreras 2011:233-235). One main characteristic in the Wari pottery is the use of several
colors like white, black, red, orange, gray, and light brown, in several hue values. It is highly
decorated with geometric designs and representations of persons and animals similar to those of
Wari in the Pongora Drainage, and Pucara and Tiahuanaco in the Titicaca Basin in the southern
highlands.
A jar with a Chakipampa design was found in Makatampu (LL-14) from a possible burial. In
Huaca Aramburu Wari pottery, specially Chakipampa and Pachacamac, was found in the
superficial layers that covered Middle and Late Lima structures, and in the Western Passage of the
Platform 2, where Wari pottery, especially from the Chakipampa and Pachacamac styles, along
260
with domestic plain pottery, and other Middle Horizon Epoch 2 artifacts, were found in
association with Nieveria vessels and some Late Lima sherds. In Huaca 9, a small sherd, probably
Pachacamac, was found in a superficial and removed layer that covered Late Lima architecture
(see Appendix B). Also in Huaca Aramburu, Chakipampa sherds were found in Platform 5 and in
superficial layers around Huaca 20 (M-82); A Nieveria bottle with a Chakipampa design was
found in a burial in Huaca Middendorf along with several sherds with Wari designs (See
Appendix C).
6.8. The Pativilca Pottery Style:
This style emerged during the Middle Horizon Epoch 2 on the north-central Peruvian Coast,
and expanded to the Central Coast in the same epoch. This is a monochrome pottery that is
characterized by mold-impressed decoration, with complex representation that results from a
reinterpretation of Moche scenes mixed with Wari elements (see Appendix A). The analysis of
this style was based on only one specimen from Makatampu (LL-62) (see Appendix B).
6.9. The Three-color Geometric Pottery Style:
This style emerged in the central and North-Central Coast during the first 4 epochs of the Late
Intermediate Period, and is characterized by beakers, pots, jars, jugs, and bottles with painted
geometric decoration in white, red and black, in some occasions with sculpted or applied
decoration, with the representations of persons, monkeys and fantastic creatures (See Appendix
A). The analysis of this style was based on the collections of LL-63 (Makatampu) that came from
burials (See Appendix B). Some vessels of this style were found in burials in Huaca Aramburu
261
(LL-62) and Huaca Middendorf (LL-75) (See Appendix C). Similar vessels were found in sites in
the Chancay, Rimac and Lurin river valleys and the Ancon Bay (See Appendix D).
6.10. The Ychsma Pottery Style:
This style emerged in the Rimac and Lurin valleys during the Late Intermediate Period and
lasted until the end of the Late Horizon Period. It is characterized by the existence of a variety of
shapes, like open bowls, beakers, closed bowls, pots, jars, jugs, bottles, and figurines with the
representation of animals and persons. The decoration is much simpler than in the previous styles.
It usually consists on white or red paint forming random designs on the surface of the vessels.
There are also impressed designs, and modeled humans, felines, dogs and birds applied to the
surface or forming the body of the vessels. There is a great amount of domestic pottery without
decoration and covered with soot. The best sequence for this style was proposed by Vallejo
(2004) who divided it into six phases.
In Huaca Huantille (LM-52) Middle A to Late Ychsma B sherds were collected from the
surface. In Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (M-7) Middle A to Late B Ychsma pottery was found in
several layers, along with Late Ychsma vessels put as offerings in two human burials. Middle and
Late Ychsma sherds came from the surface of Mateo Salado Group (See Appendix B).
Middle and Late Ychsma sherds and vessels deposited in human burials were found in Huaca
Middendorf (LL-75), and Huaca Aramburu (LL-62). In Makatampu the rescue work from the
1940’s discovered a great number of vessels in burials of all the Ychsma phases. Late Ychma B
vessels were found in burials in Huaca La Luz, Huaca 18 (M-77), Huaca San Miguel (M-95), and
Huaca Tres Palos (M-98) 8. In Huaca Pacific Fair (M-166) some Middle or Late Ychsma sherds
were discovered on surface (see Appendix C).
262
6.11. The Chancay Pottery Style:
This pottery style emerged in the valleys of Huaura and Chancay rivers and expanded to the
south to the Chillon, Rimac and Lurin river valleys during the Early Intermediate and the Late
Horizon periods. This pottery is characterized by beakers and jars decorated with complex
geometric designs in black over a white background. In some cases there are applications on the
vessels, representing persons, dogs and monkeys (See Appendix A).
In Makatampu, several vessels were discovered in late human burials. From Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa (M-7) and Huaca Huantille (LM-52) one Chancay sherd came from each site (See
Appendix B).
Chancay sherds were found in Huaca San Miguel (M-95), and in human burials in Huaca
Aramburu (LL-62) and Huaca 21 (LL-75) (See Appendix C).
6.12. Inca Pottery Style:
Originally from the Huatanay and Vilcabamba river valleys in Cusco in the Southern Peruvian
highlands, this style expanded to the rest of the country and beyond during the Late Horizon
Period. There are several shapes, especially jars, jugs, pots and open bowls. The decoration
consists mainly of geometric designs painted in white, red, black, and orange.
No Inca specimens were found in the analyzed collections. The known specimens are from
previous publications: one sherd of an aryballos (Inca jar) from Huaca Tres Palos (M-98), one
Inca aryballos from Huaca 64A (M-69), and one jar that combined an Ychsma jar shape with an
Inca aryballos shape from Huaca Middendorf (LL-75) (See Appendix C).
263
6.13 Conclusions: The pottery analysis allowed the establishment of the relative chronology and
the cultural associations of several sites in the area of investigation, based on the direct analysis of
pottery collections recovered during previous investigations, and using the information about
other collections that has been published from other sites. The earliest occupation in the area
belongs to the Ancon pottery style during the first half of the Early Horizon Period, associated
with small mounds and simple constructions. At some time between the end of the Early Horizon
Period and the first half Early Intermediate Period the Topara pottery style expanded from the
South Coast to the Central Coast. Only some bottles of this style were discovered near Huaca La
Palma. During the second half of the Early Intermediate Period and Epoch 1 of the Middle
Horizon Period, Middle and Late Lima style pottery were found associated with massive
buildings made of small mud bricks in Maranga and Makatampu groups. Wari Pottery from the
Chakipampa and Pachacamac styles from Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period has been found
in Huaca Aramburu also associated to massive constructions.
Three-color Geometric style vessels from the beginning of the Late Intermediate Period were
found in burials in Makatampu and Maranga groups. Early, Middle and Late Ychsma pottery
from the Late Intermediate and Late Horizon periods was found in association with massive
constructions made of rammed earth walls in Mateo Salado, Makatampu and Maranga group, and
other late sites in the area of investigation, as well as vessels in burials put in early constructions.
Chancay pottery style specimens were also found in architectonic fills and human burials as
offerings.
264
CHAPTER 7
The Colonial Period Documental Information
7.1. Objectives and method of investigation:
This part of the investigation was done in order to compile the information contained in several
documents of the Colonial Period (from the Sixteenth to the beginnings of the Nineteenth
centuries), that could help to understand the political and economic organization of the indigenous
population in the Rimac River Valley in Pre-colonial periods, as well as the original names of the
archaeological sites and irrigation systems detected in the aerial pictures. Most of the Colonial
Period documents were published, but it was necessary in some cases, to go to archives and
libraries in Lima in order to read the original documentation, some of them unpublished, others
wrongly transcribed.
7.2. Ychsma:
The name “Ychsma”, or its variants “Yzma”, “Irma”, “Ichma”, “Ychmay” and “Ychima”,
appeared frequently in Colonial Period documents from the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries
when they mention the Pachacamac god and the Rimac and Lurin valleys. The Lurin River Valley
was known during those centuries as Pachacamac or Yzma.
Fray Cristóbal Castro and Diego Ortega y Morejón wrote in 1558:
“… pachacama que quiere decir el que da el ser a la tierra se aparezio e(n) figura
de onbre a topa ynga yupangue do esta edificada vna casa vino p(or) vnos sueños
265
que tuvo q(ue)l criador de todo se avia de hallar e(n) el valle llamado yzma…”
(Castro y Ortega and Morejón 1974).
Hernando de Santillán wrote in 1563:
(Topa Inga) “…determinó de ir a buscar el Hacedor de la tierra al dicho valle de

Irma, que es el que agora se dice Pachacama…”. (Santillán 1968:392)
Cristóbal de Albornoz, sometime during the second half of the Sixteenth Century, mentioned
the divinities of Lima and Pachacamac, indicating that the people from Lima identified
themselves as Ychsmas. Their idol was a round rock:
“Provincia Ychima
“Pachacamac, guaca principal de los indios de la dicha provincia de Ychmay, la más
principal que hoyo en este reino, era una zorra de oro que había en un cerro, hecha a
mano, junto al pueblo de Pachacama […] Rimac, guaca de los indios de Lima que se
dezían ychmas donde está poblada la ciudad de los Reyes, era una piedra redonda.
Está en un llano donde tiene la güerta Gerónimo de Silva” (Duviols 1967: 34-35).
In the report made by Rodrigo Cantos de Andrade in 1573, “Ychsma” accompanys the names
of several places in the valley of the Lurin River: “Pachacama Ychsma”, “Hanan Ychsma”,
“Anan Ychsma Caringa” and “Hurin Ychsma”:
“En el pueblo de Pachacama Ychsma, que está en cabeça de su magestad y

encomendado a Hernan Gonzales, vecino de los Reyes…” (Rostworowski 1999:49).
“…mandó paresçer ante sí a don Juan Cuchiguaylle, yndio principal deste
repartimiento, de la parcialidad de Hanan Ychsma,…” (Rostworowski 1999:52).
266
“…mandó paresçer ante si a don Alonso Choque Guamaní, indio de la parcialidad de
Anan Ychsma Caringa de este repartimiento…” (Rostworowski 1999:53-54).
“…mandó paresçer ante sí a Geronimo Calanco, yndo principal y gobernador de la
parcialidad de Hurin Ychsma…” (Rostworowski 1999:96).
It is clear that the Lurin River Valley was known at the beginning of the Colonial Period as
Ychsma and, along with the Rimac River Valley, composed a unity that was registered in the
Colonial Period documents as “Province of Pachacamac”. Francisco Pizarro asserted this in
Foundation Act of the city in 1535:
“Porque me pareció que ansy convenía al servicio de su magestad yo tuve por bien de
mudar el dicho pueblo en esta provincia de pachacama en el asyento del cacique de
Lima…” (Lee and Bromley 1935-1962: Volume 8:10).
Cristóbal de Molina indicated in 1553 that the valleys of Lima and Pachacamac were “the same
thing”:
“…y en este valle de esta ciudad había y en Pachacama cinco leguas de aquí, que era
toda una cosa…” (Molina 1916:126).
The priest Antonio de la Calancha wrote in 1638 that the valleys Lima and Lurín rivers
composed the Pachacamac province and were under the control of the same main lord:
“…; i llamávase todo, la Provincia de Pachacamac, tomando el nonbre del pueblo

principal, que era cabeça desta Provincia; i nonbrávase así, porque el ídolo mayor
desto, que oy se llama Perú, tenía allí su Huaca, su tenplo, su adoratorio, culto i
267
sacerdotes. Oy vemos sus grandes edificios; mostrando sus ruinas la gran población
de su prosperidad.” (Calancha 1638 Volume II: 149).
“…i así proveyó auto don Francisco Piçarro en Pachacamac a ocho de Enero del año
de mil i quinientos i treinta i cinco, en que mandó que viniesen tres Comisarios al
asiento del Cacique de Lima de la Provincia de Pachacamac, i viesen i paseasen todo
el valle, i advirtiesen el asiento más conveniente para fundar ciudad” (Calancha 1638
Volume II: 153).
“…que el valle de Pachacamac era dilatado, frutífero, de agradable tenple, donde
avía gran suma de casas en los contornos de su eminente guaca para los abitadores, i
puerto a propósito de
pesquería para sus comercios; fundose allí la ciudad, i después mejorando sitio la
trasladó a Lima, anbos valles de un mesmo Cazique” (Calancha 1638 Volume III:
106-107).
The “Don Gonzalo Proofs” are two documents dated to 1555 and 1559, studied by Porras
(1953) and published by Rostworowski (1981-82). In those documents, the lord of Lima, Don
Gonzalo Taulichusco, at that time settled in La Magdalena town, asked several favors of the
Spanish Crown, such as to be subject directly to the crown and not to a lesser Spanish lord,
because he lost lands and people during the process of conquest and colonization. In the Proof of
1559, an 80 year old witness named Hernando Llaxaguayla, main lord of Pachacamac, said that
he knew the lord of Lima because he was subject to him and his ancestors:
“… que conoce al dicho don Gonzalo caçique de Lima//e a sus prencepales e yndios e
tiene notiçia de sus pueblos e tierras por que los ha visto tratando con ellos desde el
tiempo de los yngas porque todos ellos en aquel tiempo fueron sujetos a este testigo y
sus pasado” (Rostworowski 1981-1982:163).
268
This passage is in accord with what was consigned by Calancha, in the sense that the lord of
Pachacamac exercised control over the lord of Lima.
7.3. The Rimac River Valley:
The Spanish chronicler Cieza de Leon wrote in 1553 that the valley of Lima was very wide,
although at that time was being uninhabited by the indigenous population:
“El valle de Lima es el mayor y más ancho de todos los que se han escripto de
Tumbez a él; y así como era grande fue muy poblado. En este tiempo hay pocos
indios de los naturales, porque, como se pobló la ciudad en su tierras y les
ocuparon sus campos y riegos, unos se fueron a unos valles y otros a otros.” (Cieza
1922: 236).
Cieza and Zárate, in their chronicles of 1557, were also impressed by the fertility and mild
climate of the valley, without rains or storms, and where the Spaniards soon installed estates for
the cultivation of local and European species:
“Fuera de la ciudad, a una parte y a otra, hay muchas estancias y heredamientos,

donde los españoles tienen sus ganados y palomares y muchas viñas y huertas muy
frescas y deleitosas llenas de las frutas naturales de la tierra, y de higueras,
platanales, granados, cañas dulces, melones, naranjos, cidras, toronjas y las
legumbres que se han traído de España; todo tan bueno y gustoso que no tiene falta,
antes digo por su belleza para dar gracias al gran Dios y Señor Nuestro, que lo crio”
(Cieza1962: 238).
269
"… es una de las buenas tierras del mundo, pues vemos que en ella no hay hambre ni
pestilencia, ni llueve, ni caen rayos, ni relámpagos, ni se oyen truenos; antes siempre
está el cielo sereno y muy hermoso" (Cieza1962: 238).
“Ochenta leguas mas arriba hay otra ciudad, dos leguas de un puerto de mar muy
bueno y seguro, asentada en un valle que se dice Lima, y la ciudad se dice los Reyes,
porque se pobló dia de la Epifania. Esta en un llano junto a un rio caudaloso; la
tierra es muy abundante de pan y de todo genero de frutas y ganados…. Es de muy
apacible vivienda por causa de su templanza, que todo el año no hay frio ni calor que
de pesadumbre;… Dase muy bien toda fruta de Castilla, especialmente naranjas,
cidras, limones, toronjas, dulce y agrio, y higos y granadas, y aun de uvas hubiera
abundancia si las alteraciones de la tierra hubieran dado lugar, porque algunas hay
nascidas que se pusieron de granos de pasas. También hay grande abundancia de
verduras y legumbres de Castilla…por manera que esta ciudad se tiene por la mas
sana y apacible vivienda de la tierra…" (Zárate 1882:467).
Fray Bernabe Cobo wrote in his chronicle from 1639 that the valley of Lima was fertile and flat
with a declination towards the coast, and that is why the waters run swiftly along the valley:
“Comenzando por su asiento, para que lo pintemos de piés á cabeza, digo: que es una
campiña ó valle muy fértil y capáz, que corre siete leguas de largo Norte Sur, por el
lado del poniente, hacia la mar, y por el oriente la cerca una sierra que llamamos las
lomas, que corre por toda la costa destos llanos” (Cobo 1882:37).
“Todo él es muy llano, con alguna declinación hacia la costa, que es causa, corran
las aguas por ella con mucho ímpetu” (Cobo 1882:38).
Cobo also noted the existence of very good soil for cultivation and for making mud bricks, but
when it is dug a soil composed by gravel and sand emerges below it:
270
“Todo el suelo de la espaciosa vega es un migajón de tierra arenisca, delga á manera
de corteza, parece le echó el Criador para hacerla habitable, porque en cualquier
parte que coben, á menos de un estado de profundidad, se acaba la tierra provechosa
y se descubre un cascajo guijas y piedras lisas de rio y arena….Esta poca tierra
superficial que tiene todo este valle, es tan fértil que lleva todo género de semillas,
frutas y legumbres, y acuden también las sementeras que he visto en tierras que no se
habían roto desde el tiempo de los Reyes Incas, cogerse mil anegas de trigo de solas
seis de sembradura; es tan a propósito esta tierra para hacer adobes para los
edificios, que con no echarles paja y enjuagarlos al Sol no se hienden ni se
resquebrajan” (Cobo 1882:88-89).
Vásquez de Espinoza in 1629 also described the valley, noticing that the main irrigation
channels that fertilized it, had other minor channels derivative from them:
“…gran ciudad de Los Reyes, llamada Lima… fundada a la ribera, y margenes de su

Rio, que corriendo de oriente a poniente, pasa por la parte del norte, de la ciudad, la
qual esta fundada en el valle en tierra llana, fertil, amena de alegre vista, y regalada
por las muchas asequias, que sacan del Rio, por la parte de arriba, que fertilizan todo
el valle; de estas asequias sacan otras menores, que por cada quadra entran dos, que
limpian toda la ciudad, y riegan sus chacras, guertas, y jardines, que los ay en todas
las mas de las casas; y por todas las salidas de la ciudad, que la hazen de buen
parecer, y son de mucho recreo, con cantidad de frutas regaladas de la tierra, y de
España” (Vásquez 1948:399).
Among the witnesses that declared in the “Proof of Don Gonzalo” in 1559, there were several
persons who said that the valley of Lima, at the arrival of the Spaniards, had lots of fruit trees,
agricultural fields and forests:
271
Pedro de Aconchel said:
"..al tiempo que el dicho marques entró en este valle avía muchos árboles de frutales y
bosques dellos por las chacras e otras partes.." (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 136).
Pedro Challamay declared:
“…al tiempo que el dicho marques entró hera todo de frutales de guavos e guayavos e
lucumos y otros frutas y asimismo de camotales e donde cogían sus comidas y otras
cosas…". (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 171).
Fray Gaspar de Carvajal said:
"avía montes de arboledas e así lo hera el sitio de esta çiudad e se yvan los españoles
dos leguas sin que les diese sol e todos estos árboles era frutales e agora ve que no
hay ninguno o muy poquitos…” (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 138).
For Marco Pérez the valley was:
“…como un vergel de muchas arboledas de frutales” (Rostworowski 1981-1982:
140).
272
Enrique Hernández asserted:
“… al tiempo que este testigo vino a esta ciudad de Los Reyes vio como en este valle
de Lima avia muchas arboledas e frutales que pareçia un vergel e que agora ve que
por maravilla hallarán un árbol…” (Rostworowski 1981-1982:143).
The priest Reginaldo de Lizárraga wrote in his chronicle from 1605 that the name of the valley
was “Rimac” at the arrival of the Europeans, and was wide, very fertile with irrigated agricultural
fields, where native and European species were cultivated:
“El valle donde se fundó la ciudad de Los Reyes, llamado Rimac en lengua de los
indios, sin hacer agravio a otro, es uno de los buenos, y se dijere, uno de los mejores
del mundo; muy ancho, abundante de muchas y muy buenas tierras, todas de riego,
pobladas de chácaras, como las llamamos en estas partes, que son heredades donde
se da trigo, cebada, viñas, olivares (a las aceitunas las llamamos criollas: son las
mejores del mundo), camuesas, manzanas, ciruelas, peras, plátanos y otros árboles
frutales de la tierra, membrillos y granadas, tantos y tan buenos como los de Zahara;
las legumbres, así de nuestra España como las de acá, en mucha abundancia en todo
el año” (Lizárraga 1968:18).
Before the arrival of the Spaniards, the Valley of Lima was densely populated. Santa Cruz
Pachacuti in 1613 mentioned that the Inca Pachacuti found several towns each one with its own
god:
273
“…parte para la provincia de los Limac Yungas en donde halló tantos pueblesuelos,
cada uno con sus uacas…” (Santa Cruz Pachacuti 1993:223).
Bernabe Cobo argued in 1653 the same, and that the evidences of the presence of this ancient
population were in the ruins of their towns in the valley:
“Antes de la venida de los españoles á esta tierra estaba este valle y comarca muy
poblado de indios, como lo muestran las ruinas de sus pueblo” (Cobo 1882:41).
7.4 The Irrigation Channels:
The irrigation channels in the Lima Valley, according to different Colonial Period sources,
existed before the arrival of Europeans. The first references are found in two local laws registered
in the books “Cabildos de Lima” in 1535 and 1551, when it was established that, apart from the
layout design of the new city, the tracing of the ancient channels should stay the same, as before
the founding of the city:
“11de março de 1535… en este día los dichos señores dixieron que por quanto enesta
çibdad ay necesidad que par servicio della ande el agua por las calles y solares por
sus acequias como solia andar antes que la çibdad se fundara e que para esto cada
vesyno tenga cargo de fazer y dar lugar para que se pase por su solar y le de salida
para que sirva a los otros solares/por manera que ande por su horden e se
aprovechen todos della…” (Lee and Bromley 1935-1962: Libro Primero: 20).
“En este día a seys días del mes de otubre de mil e quinientos e cincuenta e un
años…otro sy la çibdad propuso y dixo a su señoria que conviene hazer las acequias
desta çibdad y el repartimiento de las aguas della que suplicaron a su señoria la
mande fazer/ a lo qual su señoria yllustrisima Respondio y mandó que se haga el
274
dicho rrepartimiento e orden del agua como la tenían los indios antiguamente e que
della se Haga libro y ordenanças de manera que aquel a quien se diere agua pague lo
que la çibdad hordenare de las costas de las que enella anduvieren/a su señoria la
cometio a Antonio del Solar Regidor para que tome los camayos antiguos del agua
deste valle antes el escribano desta çibdad haye la horden como los naturales solían
tener…” (Lee and Bromley 1935-1962, Libro Cuarto: 459-460).
Bernabé Cobo also mentioned in his chronicle of 1639 that the irrigation channels were made
before the foundation of the city:
“La antigüedad de estas acequias es mayor que la de la misma ciudad, porque antes
que ella fuera fundada corrían por su sitio, y los indios regaban con ellas sus
chácaras y heredades” (Cobo 1639: 62).
Ambrosio Cerdán y Pontero said the same in his writing of 1793:
“Quando fundó la Capital Lima su primer Gobernador al Señor Marques Don

Francisco Pizarro en 1535, fueron las Acequias, dispuestas por los Emperadores
Incas para la prosperidad de la Agricultura, una de las muchas pruebas que
justamente se admiraron de sus sabios desvelos y benéficos cuidados” (Cerdán y
Pontero 1793: Fol. 180).
The most ancient written reference about the channel of Maranga is in a document from the
“Jury of Waters” section of the National General Archive of Lima, dated to 1618: “Autos
seguidos por D. Diego Rebollo contra D. Baltasar Fernández de la Coba, sobre repartición de
agua de la acequia de Maranga” (AGN Juzgado Privativo de Aguas 3.3.1.13 Año 1618).
275
In another document from the same archive from 1696, it is mentioned that the main water
inlet was called “Santo Domingo”, from which La Magdalena, Maranga, and La Legua channels
originated:
“Remate de la obra del tajamar y de la toma llamada de Santo Domingo, por donde
recibe el agua la acequia que riega los valles de Magdalena, Maranga y Legua.- Era
Juez de Aguas el Alcalde Ordinario de esta ciudad de los Reyes D. Juan de Urrutia y
Oyanguren” (AGN JA3.3.4.2 Año 1696).
In the 1774 map of the area “Plano de los Canales y Tomas por donde se riegan los valles de
La Magdalena, Maranga y La Legua” from the Library of Catalunya (Mattos-Cárdenas 2004:
fig. III.14), there are two inlets, “Santo Domingo” and “Santa Rosa”, called that way because they
were situated close to those convents. From those inlets emerged the main channel that then
divided into three channels: La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua. The course of the channels
and the places irrigated by them, are describe in the “Tratado de Aguas de Lima” (“Treaty of the
Waters of the Valley of Lima”) by Cerdan y Pontero (1793).
7.5. Lima:
When the Spaniards arrived to the valley, “Lima” was used to name the town and polity
(“cacicazgo” in the Early Colonial Period documents)” of the lord (“cacique” in Early Colonial
Period documents) Taulichusco, and the god whose temple was located close to where the
Spaniards founded the “City of the Kings”. “Lima” appeared for the first time in the “Libros de
Cabildos de Lima” (“Books of the Town Concil of Lima”) in 1535, when a commission of
276
Spaniards in charge of locating a good place to found the city exposed its results. Francisco
Pizarro said:
“Porque me parecio que ansy convenia al servicio de su magestad yo tuve por bien de
mudar el dicho pueblo en esta provincia de pachacama en el asyento del cacique de
Lima porque me parece que esta en comedio de tierra donde los dichos indios puedan
servir con poco trabajo e mejor sostener e por estar como esta junto a el muy buen
puerto para la carga y descarga de navios que vinieren a estos reynos para que de
aquí se provean de las cosas necesarias…” (Lee and Bromley 1935-1962 Tomo 8:10).
Juan Tello, one of the men commissioned by Pizarro to find the ideal place for the city, capital
of his governorship, said that the town of Lima was the best place because it has plenty of water,
wood and lands for agriculture:
“que ha seis días que lo andan mirando por toda la tierra e alrededor del dicho
pueblo de Lima que le parece, que el asyento para hacer el dicho pueblo que se ha de
hazer está muy bien en el asyento de Lima porque la comarca es muy buena e tiene
muy buen agua e leña e tierras para sementera e cerca del puerto de la mar e asyento
claro y descombrado que a razón le parecía /ser sano e tal cual conviene para asentar
el dicho pueblo para que se perpetue e los indios que an de servir en el a los vecinos
no Recebiran mucho trabajo por estar como están las comarcas…. (Lee and Bromley
1935-1962 Tomo 8:12).
Garcilaso indicated in his chronicle from 1609 that in the South and Central Coast of Peru,
there were two kings called Chuquimancu and Cuismancu at the time of the Inca conquest:
277
“Sujetado el rey Chuquimancu y dada orden en el gobierno, leyes y costumbres que él
y los suyos habían de guardar, pasaron los incas a conquistar los valle de
Pachacámac, Rímac, Cháncay y Huaman (que los españoles llaman la Barranca).
Que todos esos seis valles poseía un señor poderoso llamado Cuismancu que también
como el pasado presumía llamarse rey….” (Garcilaso de la Vega 1995: 392).
Garcilaso was the only author that mentioned both lords from Lima. Actually it was a mistake
because Cuismancu and Chuquimancu were kingdoms from Cajamarca in the Peruvian Northern
highlands, according to the visit of Cristóbal de Barrientos to the Province of Caxamarca in 1540:
“…en presencia de mi Gaspar de Arana, escribano nombrado por el dicho señor

visitador, hizo aparecer ante sí a todos los señores de la dicha tierra de Caxamarca,
que son los siguientes:
“Carvarayco, señor del Pueblo de Guzmango; e Colquecuzma, señor del pueblo de
Chuqimango…” (Espinoza 1967:27).
It was Garcilso who was the first to mention the existence of an idol called Rimac, from the
Quechua “speaker”, and from which the polity and the valley were named.
“El valle de Rímac está a cuatro leguas al norte de Pachacámac. El nombre Rimac es
participio de presente: quiere decir “el que habla”. Llamaron así al valle por un ídolo
que en él hubo en figura de hombre, que hablaba y respondía a lo que le preguntaban
(como el oráculo de Apolo délfico y otros muchos que hubo en la gentilidad antigua).
Y porque hablaba le llamaban “el que habla” –y también al valle donde estaba.”
(Garcilaso de la Vega 1995: 393).
Este ídolo tuvieron los yuncas en mucha veneración y también los incas después que
ganaron aquel hermoso valle (donde fundaron los españoles la ciudad de los Reyes
278
por haberse fundado día de la aparición del Señor, cuando se mostró a la gentilidad;
de manera que “Rimac” o “Lima” o “la ciudad de los Reyes”, todo es una misma
cosa; tiene por armas tres coronas y una estrella). Tenían al ídolo en un templo
suntuoso, aunque no tanto como el de Pachacámac, donde iban y enviaban
embajadores los señores del Perú a consultar las cosas que se les ofrecían de
importancia (Garcilaso de la Vega 1995: 393).
“Y que los reyes Incas, además de adorar a pachacámac y tenerle por hacedor y
sustentador del universo, tendrían de allí adelante por oráculo y cosa sagrada al
Rimac que los yuncas adoraban. Y que pues los Incas se ofrecían a venerar su ídolo
Rímac, que los yuncas en correspondencia, por vía de hermandad, adorasen y
tuviesen por dios al sol, pues por sus beneficios, hermosura y resplandor merecía ser
adorado- y no la zorra ni otros animales de la mar” (Garcilaso de la Vega 1995:
393).
“Y así, desde entonces, quedó asentado que en el templo de Pachacámac se

consultasen los negocios reales y señoriles y en el de Rimac los comunes y plebeyos. Y
así le confirmó aquel ídolo el nombre “hablador” porque habiendo de responder a
todos le era forzoso hablar mucho” (Garcilaso de la Vega 1995: 393).
Antonio de la Calancha wrote in 1638 that in the place where the “City of the Kings” was
founded, was no previous town, only agricultural fields with some families living there. The main
town of Lima and its idol were located in Limatambo, one league south of the City of the Kings:
“En el sitio donde está fundada esta Ciudad insigne, jamás uvo población en su
antigüedad; era valle de labranças en que avía algunas familias; el pueblo estava
casi una legua deste asiento al Sur deste País, fue muy grande antes que le
conquistasen los Ingas, como lo muestran sus ruinas, i nos lo manifiestan sus altos i
dilatados edificios. Conquistó estos valles, aquel celebrado por sabio i justiciero Topa
Inga Yupangui décimo Rey desta Monarquía,…”. (Calancha 1638 Tomo II: 148).
279
“Demás del gran tenplo i Huaca del supremo Pachacamac, tenía cada valle su Dios
particular, i todos tenían el nombre de su Dios. El deste valle, contiguo al de
Pachacamac (aunque de una población a otra avía más de quatro leguas) era el Dios
Rímac, cuya Huaca i tenplo, vemos oy junto a la granja de los Religiosos Padres de
santo Domingo, que se llama, la Chacra de Rimactanpu, i corrupto el nombre,
llamamos Limatanbo; i a este valle i ciudad Lima, conjunto a esta Huaca, está el
antiguo pueblo que llegaba asta Maranga casi media legua, como lo atestiguan sus
ruinas i sus naturales” (Calancha 1638 Tomo II: 149).
Calancha, interested in why Lima was the name of the town, talked with the indigenous Lord
of La Magdalena town, who revealed to him that Lima was the name of the “talker” god whose
temple was located in Limatambo:
“Deseoso yo de saber lo cierto, i con curiosidad de averiguar lo verdadero, me fui al

Indio Governador de la Madalena i Surco, que son los Indios naturales de aquel
antiguo pueblo; i preguntándoles por qué se llamava esto Rímac, me respondieron:
¿Eres tú acaso de los que creen que se llama Rímac por su río? Llamávase así el Dios
que adorvan nuestros aguelos, porque les ablava i respondía; cosa que nunca se vido
en la Huaca de Pachacamac, i por onra de su Dios llamaron Rímac a su valle. Esto
les e oído muchas veces que me e informado, sin que uviese Indio antiguo que dijese
lo contrario. Entonces supe que era la Huaca deste ídolo la que oy está en las tierras
que los Españoles llamamos Lima Tanbo, i los Indios Rímac Tanpu, que quiere decir,
casa, vivienda, o mesón del Dios que abla; aunque lo que se llamava Tanpu, era casa
Real que cada pueblo tenía en que se aposentase el Inga, i era un Galpón” (Calancha
1638 Tomo II: 150-151).
“Era pues la Huaca del Dios Rímac, la que está junto a la que oy es granja de santo
Domingo. Los Españoles mudaron el pueblo por apartarlo del ídolo donde estava
antes, i le quitaron el nombre de Rímac, llamose Guatca, i éste se despobló
280
reduciendo a sus Indios al pueblo de la Madalena, que oy está media legua de esta
Ciudad. Los grandes edificios altos que se ven desde Limatanbo asta Maranga no
eran Huacas sino entierros, casas o Palacios; el que se llama de Mateo Salado era del
Rey Inga, el otro del señor deste valle, i los otros menores de Caciques ricos”
(Calancha 1638 Tomo II: 150).
But Cristóbal de Albornoz, sometime during the second half of the 16th century, indicated that
the idol of Lima was a round rock located in the kitchen garden of Geronimo de Silva:
“Rimac, guaca de los indios de Lima que se dezían Ichma donde está poblada la
ciudad de los Reyes, era una piedra redonda. Está en un llano donde tiene la güerta
Gerónimo de Silva” (Duviols 1967: 34).
Rostworowski (1978:70-72) found the location of Silva’s kitchen garden. It was close to the
Santa Ana Church, where a huaca was located until the Seventeenth Century. This place is close
to the City of the Kings and far away from Limatamabo. So, there are two versions about where
the temple of Lima was located. In any case, both sites are situated in the valley of the Huatica
channel.
Contrary to Calancha, Bernabé Cobo wrote that the City of the Kings was founded in the same
place where the main town of the Lima was located, although it was a small place built with very
simple materials:
“Que asentada y trazada la ciudad, conforme á la planta y dibujo que para ello se
hizo en papel, en el mismo asiento del pueblo de indios, dichos Lima, que estaba en la
281
rivera del rio, á la banda del Sur, en el mismo sitio y lugar que hoy ocupa la plaza y
casas reales,…” (Cobo 1882: 21).
“…el mismo que tenia un lugarejo de indios que en medio de él estaba, siguiendo en
esto el dictamen que comúnmente guardaban los pobladores en estas indias. Los
cuales como no pudiesen tan en breve tener entera noticia y osperiencia de la tierra y
sus cualidades para escoger conveniente sitio en que poblar, juzgaban prudentemente
por el mejor y mas apropósito el que los naturales habían poblado: lo uno por
hallarlo ya proveído de agua, leña y otras cosas necesarias á una República, y lo otro
porque conjeturaban serla el mas sano; y fundamento era el que en tantos años como
sus moradores tenian de experiencia, no dejarían de haber escojido para su vivienda
el asiento mas conveniente, mayormente siendo sus edificios y casas tan leves y de tan
poco ruido; y consta que cuando hubieran errado en su elección al principio, luego
que cayeron en la cuenta y advirtieron su yerro lo habrían enmendado, pasándose á
mejor puesto, sin que se les pusiese por delante para dejar de mudarse el trabajo de
labrar nuevas casas, que tan poco tiempo les había de llevar” (Cobo 1882: 24).
Cobo stated the fact that although the city has the official name of “The City of the Kings”, it
was more commonly known with the Pre-colonial name of Lima, and also that was the name of
the river:
“De mas del nombre que se le puso en su fundación, y confirmó después el Rey en la
cédula en que le hizo mercedes de escudo de armas, que es el sobre dicho de los
Reyes, se llama también Lima, nombre que se le puso del sitio y pueblo de indios en
que se asentó, el cual es al presente mucho mas común y usado que el primero…”
(Cobo 1882:24).
Informándome yo acerca de ese punto, con toda diligencia, de algunos indios

viejos que yo alcancé, que se acordaban del tiempo en que los españoles vinieron á
esta tierra, me respondieron por cosa cierta y asentada entre ellos: que á toda la
282
población de indios que se estendia por las riberas de este rio llamaban antiguamente
Limac, bien que desde que hubiesen puesto este nombre primero al rio, y que con el
tiempo se fuese extendiendo hasta abrazar en su significación las riberas del mismo
rio, con las poblaciones ó rancherías que en ellas había…” (Cobo 1882: 26-27).
The name of the indigenous lord of Lima at the arrival of the Spaniards was Taulichusco, who
was named “the old” in order to differentiate him from his son “Don Gonzalo Taulichusco” who
inherited the polity when his brother Guachinamo died (Rostworowski 1978:79-82). The best
sources of information available for the lord of Lima are the “Proofs of Don Gonzalo” from 1555
and 1559 (Rostworowski 1981-1982) and the “Don Gonzalo’s Will” (Lohman 1984).
The witness Francisco de Grecia said in the Proof of Don Gonzalo from 1555 that he saw when
Don Gonzalo inherited the polity after his brother Guachinamo died:
“A la quarta pregunta dixo, que después de muerto el dicho Taulichusco vió este
testigo subçeder en su caçicacazgo e señorio a Guachinamo su hijo, hermano de don
Gonçalo el qual lo tubo e poseyó cierto tiempo hasta que murió e después de su
muerte subçedio e ha tenido e tiene el dicho cacicazgo el dicho don Gonçalo caçique e
como tal caçique ha sido y es tenido e conscido e obedecido entre sus indios y este
testigo lo tiene en esta reputación y en ella /f.5/ es avido e tenido quyeta e
pacíficamente syn contradicción alguna.-“ (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 114).
In the Proof of 1555 Don Gonzalo stated that he was the son of Taulichusco and that the City
Court gave his lands and fields to the Spaniards who populated the new city:
“Don Gonçalo caçique de este valle de Lima que al presente yo y los indios mis
subjetos estamos a cargo de la Corona Real digo: a mí me conviene hacer noticia de
283
como soy hijo de Tauruchusco, cacique principal que fue de este dicho valle y
repartimiento e como por derecha línea de subcesion y costumbre de los naturales me
pertenece y poseo el dicho cacicazgo y que demás después que los españoles la
començaron a poblar así por los gobernadores que /f.1 v./ estos reynos ha avido como
por el cabildo, se les ha dado y repartido para chacaras y huertas e estancias muchas
de las tyerras que yo e los dichos mis indios teníamos…” (Rostworowski 1981-
1982:111).
And in the Proof of 1559, he also stated that the city was founded on his lands:
“…donde mis padres y abuelos y antepasados tenían su señorío y naturaleza le

dieron obidiençia y le començaron a servir y sirvieron, e visto por el dicho marqués la
humildad y buena voluntad con que mis padres y abuelos e yo con ellos e con nuestros
indios le obedeçimos en nuestras propias heredades e tyerras, pobló esta ciudad de
Los Reyes donde al presente está poblada y fundada y nuestras tierras repartidas a los
españoles vecinos e moradores desta ciudad” (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 125).
Other witnesses in the Proof of 1555, “Don Pedro” from Tumbes and the Spaniard Francisco
de Ampuero testified the same:
“… esta çibdad está fundada e poblada dentro del dicho valle de Lima en la
naturaleza del dicho don Gonçalo e sus antepasados” (Rostworowski 1981-1982:
125).
“A la quinta pregunta dixo que sabe y es verdad que esta dicha esta çibdad está
fundada y poblada dentro del valle de Lima, pero no sabe sy es en el asyento e tierras
del dicho repartimiento” (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 118).
284
Don Pedro Grancabilca, servant of Francisco Pizarro, said that Lima was founded on the lands
of Taulichusco and that, in ancient times, the Colli lord (from the Chillon River Valley) had
differences with Taulichusco’s father and occupied some of those lands by force, but in time they
became part of Taulichusco’s dominions:
“A la quinta pregunta dixo qu sabe lo contenido en la pregunta por que conoce el

dicho asiento caer e yncluyr en las tyerras del dicho cacicazgo por esto que en
tiempos del Ynga ubo cierta diferencia entre el padre de Taulichusco e un yndio Auca
que se dezia Colli y aquél por fuerça ocupó e tomó cierta parte de las tyerras deste
valle y en lo que cupó entró e se incluye cierta parte del sitio desta çibdad y esto
segund este restigo lo ha oído decir a otro indios antiguos desta tierra e que de los
dichos indios Colli ya no ay memoria e se conviertieron en los indios del dicho
cacicazgo…”(Rostworowski 1981-1982: 120).
In the Proof of 1559, Hernando Llaxaguayla, lord of Pachacamac, said that Taulichusco had
more than three thousand people under his dominion, with other lesser lords with their owns lands
and people in his polity:
“A la quarta pregunta, dixo que es verdad que este testigo vio que el dicho //
Taulichusco a la sazón que la pregunta dize hera señor prençepal deste valle de Lima
e tenía tres mil y tantos indios poco mas o menos a él sujetos que le servían, e que de
los dichos tres mil indios él hera el señor prençipal porque abía otros caçiques de
otros valles de su comarca que cada uno tenía señorío en sus indios o heran sujetos al
dicho Taulichusco” (Rostworowski 1981-1982: 163).
285
In the proof from 1559, Ynes Yupanqui witnessed a discussion between Taulichusco and
Pizarro. Taulichusco was demanding the devolution of some agricultural fields where the City of
the Kings was founded, but Pizarro replied that this was the only good place for the city:
“…oyo decir al dicho Taulichusco, padre del dicho don Gonzalo que las tierras donde
estaba esta ciudad fundada heran suyas y que le tomavan sus tierras e dezia al dicho
marques don Francisco Piçarro que porque le tomava sus tierras, que donde abían de
senbrar sus indios y que si le tomava las tierras que se le huirían los indios, y el dicho
marques le respondia que no abia donde poblar la ciudad si no hera aquí y que de
fuerza se habían de tomar…” (Rostworowski 1981-1982:161).
But there is also contradictory information. The witnesses Don Juan, main lord of Surco, said
in the Proof of 1555 that the City of the Kings was not founded in the lands of the lord of Lima:
“A la quinta pregunta dixo que sabe y es verdad que esta dicha çibdad está fundada
en el dicho valle de Lima pero no en las tyerras del dicho cacicazgo” (Rostworowski
1981-1982: 115).
This version is opposed to those of the other witnesses that stated that the city was built in the
lands of Taulichusco. It is unknown why he said that. Don Juan also said something very
important: Taulichusco was yanacona (servant) of Mama Vilo, wife of the Inca Huayna Capac,
and one of his cousins, named Caxapaxa, the other main lord of the polity, was servant of Huayna
Capac:
“…en vida Guaynacapa señor principal que fue destos reynos conosció al dicho
Taulichusco ser cacique e señor principal de este dicho valle de Lima y esto mucho
286
tiempo antes que los españoles entrasen en estos reynos e a la sazón dicha el dicho
Taulichusco hera yanacona e criado de Mama Vila, muger de Guayna capa e otro
primo hermano que tenía el dicho Taulichusco que se dezía Caxapaxa, que era
principal también en este valle, era yanacona e criado del dicho Guayna capa /f.6v./ e
que entre los naturales a aquella sazón se deszía que el dicho valle antes del dicho
Taulicusco hera hijo de otro Taulichusco que fue señor y cacique principal del dicho
valle antes del dicho Taulichusco al qual subcedió el dicho Taulichusco conforme a la
suceción e costumbre de los dichos naturales e asy tenya mandaba e hera señor del
dicho cacicazgo e lo fue hasta que los españoles vinieron a este reyno e después hasta
que falleció e por tal fue habido e tenido y este testigo lo tubo.-“ (Rostworowski 1981-
1982: 115).
This personage, Caxapaxa, is also mentioned by Pedro Chalanan, lord of Guala, a polity
located in the Rimac Valley, but which exact location is unknown. Chalanan said that Caxapaxa
was the owner of half of the polity:
“A la quinta pregunta, dixo que esta çibdad está fundada en tie-/rras del dicho
Taulichusco, el qual asimismo tuvo un hermano/ que se llamó Caxapaxa, cuya hera la
mitad del dicho valle, que /residía siempre con el ynga y el dicho Taulichusco thenía
cargo de/ los indios e probeia de los tributos e de lo que mandava el ynga /que se
hiziese e lo enviaba, e en el dicho valle estan las chacaras y / heredades que tienen los
vecinos de esta çibdad e en tiempo del ynga/ todo hera uno y lo es al presente
ansimismo” (Rostworowski 1981-1982:126).
The witness Domingo Destre said in the Poof of 1559 that Taulichusco was lord of the valley
of Lima, but in the valley there were lands of other regional lords, the Sun and other gods
(huacas):
287
“… el dicho Taulichusco se intitulaba señor deste valle de Lima, no envargante que
en este valle había tierras de otros caçiques comarcanos, y del sol y de guacas…”
(Rostworowski 1981-1982: 146).
In the first decades of the Colonial Period, in addition to Don Gonzalo, main lord of Lima,
there were other lords that were, apparently, under his command. A document of the National
General Archive of the nation from 1576 mentions six of these personages:
“… el dicho don gonçalo tauri/chusco cacique principal e don cristoval guaca y/ y

francisco tanbta e don juan rima e don miguel/ cacatamocha e juan Yayví e don
lorenço/ guarque principales del dicho valle y rre/partimyento de lima….” (AGN
1576 Derecho indígena y Encomiendas Leg 3 C. 23. F7).
Although the document mentions a Colonial Period situation, it is possible that Cristóbal
Guaca, Francisco Tanbta, Juan Rima, Miguel Cacatamocha, Juan Yavyí, and Lorenzo Guarque
were descendents of Pre-colonial lords, and that during the Late Horizon Period, there could have
been at least six small polities inside the polity of Lima under the control of Taulichusco the Old.
The lord of Lima in 1576 was Cristobal Guaca (AGN 1576 Derecho indígena y Encomiendas
Leg. 3 C. 23. F2 vta), who rose in the hierarchy of lords, from secondary to principal.
In the will of Don Gonzalo Taulichusco from 1562 (Lohman 1984), although incomplete due
to its very bad preservation, there is important information. Taulichusco had lands in several parts
of the valley. Among those mentioned in the document are: Luruguayco, Cataye and Quilán
located on the other side of the Rimac River, and Macate in the Surco channel valley. It is
288
difficult to determine with exactitude the precise location of those lands due to the scarcity the
information:
“Yten declaro por la dha. Lengua que por qto. Don Francisco Guachinamo su
hermano dixo al tpo. De su fyn e muerte ciertas tierras que se llaman Luruguayco e
Cataye los cuales son e pertenecen a Luysa Chumbillacsa hija de Muchaguna e
Chumbillacsa…”
“- Yten declaro por la dha lengua que el bendio a Diego de Morales Allanyi un
pedaço de tierras en la otra parte del rrio junto al cerro…” (Lohman 1984: 272).
“Yten declaro por la dha. Lengua que él dio un pedaço de tierra de la otra parte del
rrio que se dice quilan a Xpoual. Baca declaro que no se la pudo dar porque es de los
indios e mando que sea e quede para los dhos. yndios” (Lohman 1984: 277).
“Yten. Declaro por la dha. Engua que él dio una chácara a Joan de Pedraça questa
de la otra parte del rrio sin que le pagase cosa alguna por ella declaro que es de los
dos. Yndios” (Lohman 1984: 272).
“Yten declaro por la dha. Lengua que por quanto Taulichusco su padre dexo a doña
Francisca Cuycan su hermana mujer de Don Franco, Caçique de Surco una chacara e
tierras… y seis hanegadas de sembradura que se nombra Macate questa junto a la
huerta de Diego de Agüero vecino desta çibdad en el camino que va a Surco…”
(Lohman 1984: 273).
Along with the lands that Taulichusco had around the main square of the City of the Kings, he
had also a land called Chuntay, near the San Sebastián Church in the Huatica Channel Valley and
Limatambo between the Huatica and the Surco channel valleys. He was also the owner of the
place where the town of La Magdalena was founded, irrigated by La Magdalena channel, and
some additional lands on the north side of the Rimac River.
289
Chuntay was located next to the Colonial Period church of San Sebastian. The information
about this land is in two manuscripts in the National Library of Peru: A15 (“Probanza de
yanaconas del Marqués Don Francisco Pizarro contra Don Gonzalo Taulicusco y sus indios
sobre los solares y terras…1550” 78 fols.) and A16 (“Expediente de la causa judicial que siguen
Don Francisco de la Torre, en nombre de los yanaconas del Marqués Don Francisco Pizarro y
Don Gonzalo Taulichusco, sobre la propiedad de unas tierras y solares … 1560” 41 fols.).
These documents mention a lawsuit pursued by Don Gonzalo Taulichusco against some
indigenous people, Cañaris, Huancavilcas and Quitos (from current Ecuador) that came to Lima
along with Pizarro. The Spanish authorities gave them the lands called Chuntay, property of Don
Gonzalo, but he wanted it back. The documents have not been published so far, although they
have been widely discussed by Rostworowski (1978:82), Lohman (1984) and Charney (1989:302-
306, 2001).
In the Will of Don Gonzalo (Lohman 1984) it is said that he born in the Valley of Limatambo
“Como yo Don Gonçalo Taulichusco – natural… del valle de Lima Tambo caçique
deste… hijo ligitimo de Taulichusco e de Leonor Tohuaina su mujer…” (Lohman
1984:268).
Limatambo was an estate in Colonial times, belonging to the Dominican Order due to a
donation made by Francisco Pizarro in 1540:
“En el gran valle de Lima, en el camino Real de Pachacamac, les dio la hazienda
Limatambo, que agregando despues otros partidos de tierras, que nos donaron sus
290
dueños, ha crecido a la grandeza en que la gozamos oy… y el Marques por fue
decreto confirmó esta donación, en veynte, y quatro de Enero del año siguiente de mil
quinientos, y quarenta, Secretario Antonio Picado” (Meléndez 1681:51).
The information in the Archive of the Dominican Convent in Lima (Libro 1, exp. VIII) said
that the lord of Lima had lands in Limatambo, and that he donated part of it to the estate in 1544
and 1559 (Rostworowski 1978:68, Flores-Zúñiga 2009:388). In the Proof of Don Gonzalo from
1559 the witness Fray Gaspar de Carvajal, from the Dominican Order, said that the lands of the
Convent where part of the Royal Tambo (Inn) of Limatambo, property of Taulichusco, and before
him from his father:
“A la quinta pregunta, dixo que sabe que el dicho don Gonzalo e su padre e sus
prinçipales heran señores deste valle e que (va testado do diz: yn)// aunque quando
este testigo vino a esta çiudad e estavan repartidas algunas de sus tierras a vezinos
desta çiudad e a españoles, que despues que este testigo vino se repartieron otras
muchas españoles desta çibdad, e esta casa e monasterio del señor Santo Domingo
deste çiudad se dio para chacara e tanbo real de Limatanbo e que también tenían
parte en algunas tierras deste valle otros indios comarcanos, pero que es publico que
todos ellos heran subjetos a su padre de don Gonçalo quando el dicho marques vino a
esta tierra, e que todo este asiento de la ciudad de Lima, las casas e huertas que todo
está en las tierras de don Gonçalo, e esto sabe desta pregunta”(Rostworowski 1981-
1982:137-138).
In the document “Tasa y Tributo del cacique Don Gonzalo Taulichusco” from 1549 it was
ordered, among many things, that part of the tribute of the Limas should be deposited in the tambo
that they have in the valley:
291
“… trezientas fanegadas en casa del encomendero y lo demás en el tambo de vuestro
valle…” (Rostworowski 1992:11).
Although it was not specified what tambo was or where it was located, because the document
was written before the foundation of the reduced towns, it is possible that it was Limatambo, the
most important tambo of the Limas.
Don Gonzalo Taulichusco in his testament of 1562 mentions lands located on the other side of
the river, one of which was called Quilan, next to a hill that must be what is known today as San
Cristobal Hill (Lohman 1984:272). Rostworowski mentioned a document from the General
National Archive ("“AGN, Derecho Indígena cuad. 23, año 1576”) in which a land called Pacan
is mentioned in the same area. These lands belonged to Don Cristóbal Guaca, successor of Don
Gonzalo (Rostworowski 1978:83). Flores-Zúñiga (2000:13) transcribed and published part of this
the document:
“Dongonçalo.cacique que ffue de loz / Valle delema e Xólliego [Collique] Don

Xpoval Elos de/ mas principales del dço Valle errepartimyento […] E cacicazgo
nosconcertamos congonçalo. guillen/ quees presente Enqueconel. Gizimos con Panya,
por tpo y esepacio de odço Años que comen/ çaron. Acorrer desde onze de Jullio de/
Cinquenta Y nueve años En la qual dça companya/ El diço Dongonçalo caçique se
obligo A dar diez fanegadas. detierras de Yndios desembra/dura dela otra parte de
lrrio deesta Ciudad en la Enseinada/ Yunto al puentezuelo. que passa alorigantço/
[por un sitio] quellaman pacan y quel dço/ gonçalo.guillen avia de plantar en las dças
tierras quarenta.myll sepass de vi[ñ]as/ Y una quadra o quadra Ymedia questaba/
senalado Enelmesmo lugar dearboleda/ de frutales […]”.
292
Based on Flores-Zúñiga’s transcription, Don Gonzalo declared that he was lord of the valleys
of Lima and “Xólliego”. Flores-Zúñiga’s (2000:13; 21012:86) understood that Don Gonzalo was
lord of the valleys of Lima and “Collique”, a polity located north of Lima in the Chillon River
Valley. But it is known, from the studies of Rostworowski (1972, 1977:21-75), that Collique was
another chiefdom, apart from Lima and Ychsma, with its own succession of Colonial Period lords
reduced to the town of “San Pedro de Carabayllo”.
With the intention to solve this problem, I read the document in the General National Archive.
Actually it was a bad transcription of Zúñiga. The paragraph, correctly transcribed, is as follows:
“...don gonçalo cacique que ffue de los / valle de lima E yo el dicho don cristoval el
los de/mas prencipales del dicho valle E rrepartimyento/ por si y en boz y en nombre
de los de los demas indios/ e prencipales del dicho su rrepartimyento y valle e
cacicazgo nos consertamos con gonçalo guillen/ ques presente e que con el hezimos
companya/ por tiempo y espacio de ocho años que comen/çaron a correr desde onze
de julio de/ cincuenta y nueve años en la cual dicha companya/ el dicho don gonçalo
cacique se obligo a dar/ diez hanegadas de tierra de Yndios de sembra/ dura desta
otra parte del rrio desta/ ciudad en la ensenada al pie de la sierra/ junto al
puentezuelo que passa a lorigancho/ chacaras que llaman pacan…” (AGN Derecho
indígena y Encomiendas Leg. 3 C. 23 Fs. 150 1576 F2 vta).
This verifies that there was no "Xólliego" but "Yo el dicho” (“I, the one named") written with
grammatical contraction used in the 16th century. Therefore, the lord of Lima had nothing to do
with the Valley and Collique.
La Magdalena was the most important indigenous reduction town of the Lima Valley. It was
founded thanks to a donation made by Don Gonzalo Taulichusco in 1557 to the Franciscan Order
that had built a church in that place:
293
“En catorze días del mes de agosto de mil y quinientos y çinquenta y siete años,
estando en la iglesia e monasterio que dizen de la Magdalena, que es media legua
poco más de la Ҫiudad de los Reyes, ante el muy Exelentisimo señor Marqués de
Cañete, Vissorrey y Capitán General destos Reynos y Presidente de la Audiencia Real
que en ellos rreside, paresçio presente Don Gonçalo, Caçique Prinçipal deste valle de
Lima, y por lengua de Alonso de Scobar, yntérprete, dixo que por quanto está fecha
esta casa y monasterio de la Magdalena y el sitio della y de la guerta hera suyo y de
su patrimonio y de su voluntad y consentimiento se a fecho monasterio de señor Sant
Francisco y está poblado de frayles, y se an hecho guerta y edificios, y para que esto
conste y paresca por auto, para agora y para siempre jamás, ante Su Excelencia dixo
que él hazía y hizo donaçion de las tierras y solar donde está hecho el dicho
monasterio, iglesia y guerta…” (Coloma 1989:15).
The indigenous lords of Lima, Huatca, Guala, Pacan and Amancayes were confined in the town
of La Magdalena (Málaga 1974:150; Rostworowski 1978:77). It was a pleasant place amid
agricultural fields, as was described by Vásquez de Espinosa in 1629:
“…vn pueblo de indios, que se dice la Madalena, con muchas guertas, o chacras de
árboles frutales, assi de los de españa, como de la tierra, que es vn pedazo de paraíso
por el buen citio, verdor, y alegre cielo que tiene;”(Vásquez de Espinosa 1948:423).
La Magdalena, at the beginning of Colonial Period, had as its main lord the lord of Lima. At
the end of the Sixteenth Century and the beginning of the Seventeenth Century, through a series
of marriages, the polities were fused, first Maranga and Huatca, that form a unity that fused with
Amancaes. At the end of the Colonial Period, the lords of La Magdalena had the surname of
Casamusa (Rostworowski 1978:87-88; Charney 2001:178).
294
In the General National Archive, there is a voluminous file with the title “Títulos de una
chacra y tierras que Pedro de Gárate poseía en el valle de la Magdalena de 1641” (AGN Leg. 10
C. 241 Fs. 345) that has a document from 1602 where the lord of La Magdalena Juan Casapacsi
asked for an authorization to sell some lands of his property called “Yatimanil”, where he
cultivated maize, and “Marringuasi”, near the road from La Magdalena to Callao:
“Sepan quantos esta carta/ vieren como yo don goncalo casapaci/ cacique principal
del pueblo de/ la magdalena deste rreyno del/ piru rrecidente al presente en esta/
ciudad de los rreyes digo que por quanto/ yo tengo y poseo junto al dicho pueblo/ de
la magdalena dos hanegadas/ de tierra de senbradura de mais/ que estan en el camino
rreal/ del dicho pueblo que lindan/ con tierras de miguel de solzona/ las quales se
nombran yati/manil las quales e pedido/licencia a domingo de garro/ vezino y alcalde
hordinario / en esta dicha ciudad para las/ poder vender y o dar a censo…”
(Solicitud de licencia para venta de censo 1602:F1 en AGN Leg. 10 C. 241 Títulos de
una chacra y tierras que Pedro de Gárate poseía en el valle de la Magdalena 1641).
“….tengo/ necesidad de dar a censo un pedaço de tierras mias/ llamada manrriguasi

que estan/ cerca deste dicho pueblo de la / (F2) Magdalena que seran dos/ hanegadas
por que no mes/ Provecho dellas porque/ todo lo que siemvro en ellas/ no lo gozo
porque esta en el/ camino que va deste dicho/ pueblo de la magdalena/ a lima y al
callao que todos/ los que pasan por ella lle/van lo que quieren y lo hur/tan y ansi no
me es de pro/vecho…..” (Solicitud de licencia para venta de censo 1602: F1 vta en
AGN Leg. 10 C. 241 Títulos de una chacra y tierras que Pedro de Gárate poseía en el
valle de la Magdalena 1641)
“…que les util e probechoso/ el dar a censo un pedaço de tierra/ (F3 vta) que tiene en
el camino del/ puevlo de la magdalena/ que seran dos hanegadas/ las quales se
nombran/ yatimanil en las quales/ dichas tierras el susodicho no siembra/ cosa de
consideración ni probe/cho…” (Solicitud de licencia para venta de censo 1602:F3 en
295
AGN Leg. 10 C. 241 Fs. 345 Títulos de una chacra y tierras que Pedro de Gárate
poseía en el valle de la Magdalena 1641)
In the same file the will of Juan Casapacsi is included, dated to 1608. In this document the
properties that he has are mentioned, like some lands near the town of La Magdalena, destined to
cultivate maize, along with the lands Ualla and Uachicolli:
“Yten mas declaro que yo tengo por mys bienes quatro hanega/das de tierras de
sembradura de mays que lindan con el Pueblo de/ la magdalena y por otra parte con
tierras de nuestra Señora y con tie/rras de martyn cany y con tierras de lorenzo villa y
estas dichas/ tierras los tengo arrendados….” (Solicitud de licencia para venta de
censo 1602 F1. En: AGN Leg. 10 C. 241 Fs. 345 Títulos de una chacra y tierras que
Pedro de Gárate poseía en el valle de la Magdalena 1641).
“Yten mas declaro por mys bienes en la chacara que llaman Ua/lla nuebe hanegadas
de tierras la una hanegada en la cabe/será de las tierras dejo para la cofradía de la
madre de dios/ de la limpia consepcion y con condición de que me an de/ decir una
mysa cantada cada un año que cayere dia de/ todos los santos y el restante destas
dichas tierras quiero que lo a/ya y herede don juan casapacsi y Pedro calpa mys
nyetos/ y esto es my voluntad” (Solicitud de licencia para venta de censo 1602 F1 vta.
En: AGN Leg. 10 C. 241, Títulos de una chacra y tierras que Pedro de Gárate poseía
en el valle de la Magdalena 1641).
“Yten mas declaro que tengo unas tierras llamadas uachicolli/ las quales tierras tiene
fr(ancisca) de salas biuda ….” (Solicitud de licencia para venta de censo 1602 F2 vta.
En: AGN Leg. 10 C. 241 Fs. 345 Títulos de una chacra y tierras que Pedro de Gárate
poseía en el valle de la Magdalena 1641).
296
In the National General Archive is the will of Francisco Chumbimaycha from 1596, main lord
of Huatca and uncle of the main lord Pedro Chumbicarnan, at that time reduced to the town of La
Magdalena. Chumbimaycha mentioned several lands that he had in the valley of the Huatica
channel, like Calavayca and Chactoma. But he also mentioned a land called Cantayco located
between the valleys of Huatica and La Magdalena channels.
“Y ten declaro que tengo otro pedaço de tierra en el/ dicho valle de la magdalena y
guatca que entrara dos/ fanegas de sembradura de maíz que se llama cantayto/ que
linda con tierras de dicho don miguel mi hermano…” (AGN Testamentos de indios/
Fondos Fácticos. Testamento de Francisco Chumbimaycha yndio principal del pueblo
de guatca/ Reducido en el pueblo de la Magdalena 1596 (F2))
This information is important because at the end of the 16th century the people of Huatca have
lands in the valley of La Magdalena ¿It could be a strictly Colonial situation, or it could date to
Pre-colonial times?
Raúl Adanaqué located and published the will of María de la Encarnación, main Lady of La
Magdalena town, dated on August the 12th 1696. In this will, she mentioned a huaca named
“Ñancaxma”, that could be Huaca Huantille due to the characteristics of its location, and some
agricultural fields in the valley known as Chuyquibayca and Cuzique:
“…y linda estas tierras por la cabezera con la azequia principal que pasa por las
tierras de comunidad deste dicho pueblo y mirando para el Callao con tierras que
fueron de don Pedro Chumbi Chatman (que hoy las poseen los herederos del capitán
Cristóbal Chamorro y vuelto el rostro al mar con huaca grande nombrada Ñancaxma
y tierras que fueron de Josephe Naucoy y Francisco Caynec y mirando para las
297
espaldas del pueblo con tierras que fueron de Ana Quipan donde está el olivar de la
dicha chacra…” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:52).
“Item. declaro que tengo tres fanegadas de tierras en este pueblo de la Magdalena
nombradas Chuyquibayca que la erede de la dicha mi madre, y en estas tierras
también tenían derecho mis tios…, hermanos lexitimos….y lindan estas tierras de los
erederos de Pedro Fernandes que lo es doña Maria Nicolasa Fernandes viuda mujer
que fue de el gobernador don Juan Gutierrez Guaycho difunto y asimismo linda con
tierras que fueron de Salvador Hernandes que posee su heredera Ana María mujer
que fue de Pedro Alexandro Pocon mi primo, y buento el rostro al Callao con tierras
que fueron de el capitán Hernando de Alarcón que ya está incorporada en la chácra
que fue de el doctor Justiniano Medina que oy es maestre de campo de don Alonso
Cueba y que las divide unas tapias antiguas y mirando por el mar con tierras que
fueron de Francisco Antonio Quipe que oy las tiene el capitán don Pablo y asimismo
linde con la asequia que divide las tierras que fueron de don Pedro Chumbi Chatnan
que oy las pose[e]n sus erederos don Gonzalo Tantachumbi y por una esquina con
tierras de Petronila Choque mi suegra mando que estas tierras las goze mi marido
juntamente con mi hija Pascuala de la Rosa es mi boluntad” (Adanaque 2008-
2009:53).
“Item. declaro que tengo por mis tios una fanegada de tierras en este valle de la
Magdalena nombrada Cuzique que las erede de el capitán Martin Pizarro mi tio…y
lindan estas tierras por la cabecera con tierras de doña María Andrea Sanches que oy
las pose[e] su eredero don Juan Puycvon y asimismo linde con un pedaso de tierras
de Marzelo Ate y tierras de Martin de Mendosa tierras que se dize del contador
Thomas Paredes y las dividen una guaca y tierras de la Purisima de este pueblo
últimamente linde con tierras de Diego Arucha y tiene tres tablas desde la guaca
hasta las tierras de la dicha doña Andrea Sanches…” (Adanaque 2008-2009:54).
“Item. declaro que tengo otras dos fanegadas de tierras en este valle de la Magdalena
en las tierras de comunidad de dicho pueblo…y linda estas tierras por la cabezera con
298
las de la comunidad de el dicho pueblo y tierras que dividen por unas tapias a las
tierras de los indios del pueblo viejo de Maranga y vuelto el rostro al mar con las
barrancas de el y tierras de la dicha comunidad…” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:54).
Based on this document, it can be asserted that the main lord of Huatca, Don Pedro
Chumbicharnan, had lands west of the town of La Magdalena.
In a document deposited in the National General Archive dated 1770, about a lawsuit between
Francisco Solano Chayguaca Casamusa against his uncle Eusebio Casamusa, important
personages in the town of La Magdalena, a document was included from 1732 about a division of
properties between the brothers Urbana del Espíritu Santo Casamusa and Eusebio Mariano
Casamusa. The lands were located in La Magdalena channel valley. It also mentions reservoirs, a
big huaca, a land called Calguaq, some land property of lord Chayavilca where the Maranga state
was found, and a mysterious valley in La Magdalena called Cataq:
“Yten asimismo se le aplican a dicha Do/ ña Urbana por vienes de Doña María
Ni/colasa Salina su madre una fanegada/ de tierras de pan llevar que fueron de
fran/cisco salina Barroso de las dos que estan/ inmediatas al estanque del Doctor Don
/ Andres Nuñes de Roxas y la otra restan/se te le aplica al dicho Don eusebio/
Mariano y linda con el camino re/al que viene de la Magdalena al Puer/to del Callao
y con el estanque de di/ (f13 vta) cho Doctor don Andres Nuñes y por/ el otro lado con
las tierras que fueron/ de Mariana Chani que oy poseen los he/rederos del dicho
Capitan Christoval/ chamorro y viniendo para dicho cami/no Real con las tierras que
fueron de Don/ Pedro Yllestan que oy también poseen los he/rederos del dicho capitan
Christoval cha/morro”.
299
It is impossible, for the moment, to know exactly what was the reservoir property of Dr.
Andrés Nuñes mentioned in the document, except that it was located close to the road between El
Callao Port and La Magdalena Town.
“Yten al dicho don Eusebio Mariano se/ le aplican por vienes del capitán don
Eu/sebio su padre quatro fanegadas de tie/ (f14) rras…”
“…y lindan estas dichas quatro fanegadas de tierras/ con los Barrancos del mar y por
el otro/ lado con las tierras que fueron de Ma/ria Thomasa y por el otro volviendo/ el
Rostro para el puerto del Callao con las/ tierras que fueron de Lorena de Castro que
/(f14vta) oy posee el general don Andres de savala y/ por el otro lado viniendo para la
mar/ lindan con las con las tierras que fueron/ del cacique don lorenso chumbi
chat/nan”.
This part of the document is important because it mentions some lands in La Magdalena
adjacent to the sea that were the properties of Lorenso Chumbi Charnan, the main lord of Huatca:
Yten asimismo se le aplican a la dicha/ doña Urbana del espíritu santo una fa/negada
de tierras nombrada san Joseph de/ las dos que estan en la Hacienda del Doctor/ Don
Andres Nuñes de Roxas y los linde/ros destas dos fanegadas de tierras son los/
siguientes la primera fanegada que fue/ de Juan Carvaxal que la dio en/dotte a la
dicha Doña María Nicolasa/ su nietta linda con las tierras de Mi/guel de Santillan y
las de la comuni/dad del Pueblo de la Magdalena y con /una Guaca Grande y unas
tierras /nombradas Calguaq y por el otro/ lado mirando para el camino Real/ del
Callao linda con las tierras nom/bradas el Hornillo la segunda fane/gada que fue de
Francisco Salinas/ (F15) Barroso Padre de la dicha Doña Marìa Ni/colasa se le
aplica a dicho Don Eusebio/ y linda con unas que estan Inme/diatas al mar y por el
otro lado con/ las tierras de la comunidad y Bolvién/do el Rostro al Puerto del Callao
con/ las tierras que fueron del Gobernador/ Don Pedro de Santillan y mirando par/ra
300
el mar con las de la Comunidad/ de Pescadores que oy posee Doña Fran/cisca Nuñes
de Roxas.
This part of the document mentions a land that has as limits the properties of several
personages, but also a “Huaca Grande” (big huaca) close to a land called Calguaq. Based on the
descriptions in the document, those lands were located west of La Magdalena and next to the road
between La Magdalena and Callao. Was this “Huaca Grande” one of the Mateo Salado group?
Could Calguaq be the Pre-colonial name of that archaeological compound? It is impossible to
solve these questions for the moment.
“F16
Yten en Declaracion que por vienes de dicha/ francisa Salinas Barroso fanegada y
media/ de tierras que lindan con los Barrancos/ del mar y con tierras de Nuestra
señora/ del Rosario y Mirando para el Puerto del/ Callao con las tierras que fueron
del Casique/ Don Diego challavilca y los de la Capella/nía del licenciado Don
Vicentte Boller y Vol/ viendo el Rostro a el mar con las tierras/ que fueron del dicho
cacique Don Diego Challavilca que oy esta la hacienda de/ Maranguilla ….”
This part of the document is very important because it was stated that the lord of Maranga
Diego Chayavilca had lands where the Maranguilla Estate was located, that could be the same
place known from the end of the Colonial Period until the 20th century as Maranga Estate, or
another one located very close to it. This is one of the few documents that linked the lords of
Maranga directly with the zone known at the present with this name.
F16 vta
“Yten asimismo se les aplica a las dichas/ Doña Angela y Doña Paula por Vienes de
su/ madre en el valle de Cataq una fanega/ da de tierras de pan llevar que fue de
301
Fran/sisca de Roxas y Carvaxal su Abuela/ y Linda dicha fanegadas con las tierras/
del colexio de San Pedro Nolasco y con/ la de los herederos de Pedro Carvaxal y con
las tierras que fueron de Don Pe/dro Illutan con condicion que ha de/ correr la
escriptura del Arrendami/ento de esta fanegada de tierras he/cha a favor del señor
Alferes Real/ Don Pedro Lascano por el precio corri/ente que se pag(sic) en ecte valle
y es/tas tierras y las demas mencionadas/ se les aplican a las dichas Doña Ange/la y
Doña Paula con todos los Dere/ chos y privilexios del Agua que Gozan /las tierras de
Indios del comun del Pue/ (f17) blo de la Magdalena”.
What was this Cataq valley? Based on this document, it is only known that it was located in
the valley of La Magdalena. Could it have been a secondary valley formed by a secondary or
tertiary channel of La Magdalena irrigation system? It is also mentioned that one of the limits of
this land was the school “San Pedro de Nolasco” that was located in the south part of the City of
the Kings, in the valley of the Huatica channel, 4.5 km from the town of La Magdalena. It is
necessary to find more documents in order to solve this question.
7.6 Maranga:
Maranga was mentioned for the first time in September 1534, when Pizarro gave it to Nicolás
de Ribera el Mozo, as an encomienda, but with the name Malanai, an indigenous polity whose
main lord was Chayavilca.
“Pueblo de Malanai, en la Provincia de Pachacamac, encomendada a Nicolás de

Rivera 1534”
“…e vos fueron por muy depositados ciertos indios yungas en este cazique de
Pachacamac, segund parece por una partida que está en el libro de deposyto, a que
me refiero… os deposito el principal Chayavilca señor de los pueblos de Malanai con
todos sus indios y principales e pueblos sujetos al dicho cazique…”
302
“Fecha en este pueblo de Pachacamac, termyno de esta cibdad de Xauxa, a primero
dia del mes de setiembre de myll e quinientos e treinta e quatro años – Francisco
Pizarro- por mandada de su Señoría, pedro Sancho.
“Posesión: en la cibdad de los Reyes de la Nueva Castilla, provincia del Peru veynte e
un días del mes de Noviembre, año del Señor de myll e quinientos e treinta e nueve
años,…” (Archivo General de la Nación 1926:13).
“Ante el muy noble Señor Francisco Nuñez alcalde hordinario de esta cibdad, por su
magestad, e en presencia de my, Pedro de Salinas, escribano de su Magestad, publico
e del Consejo de esta cibdad, e testigos yuso scriptos, parescia presente Niculas de
Rivera, vezino e Regidor de esta cibdad, e presentó la cédula de esta otra parte
contenyda, e por virtud de ella pidió e requyerio al dicho Señor alcalde le meta en
posesyon del dicho cazique e indios en ella contenidos, e metido le defiende e ampare
en ellos conforme a la dicha cédula e le pidió por testimonio. El luego, el dicho señor
alcalde tomó por la mano al cazique Chayabilca contenido en la dicha cedula, por sy
en nombre de todos los demás caziques, principales e indios en ella contenydos e le
dio por la mano al dicho Niculas de Rivera, regidor, el cual le tomó por la mano e
dixo que tomaba e tomó, e aprehendió en la dicha posesyon por sy en nombre de los
demás principales e indios” (Archivo General de la Nación 1926:13).
The name Maranga was registered for the first time in a visit made on April 9th 1549:
“ENCOMIENDA DE YNDIOS DE MARANGA” (Rostworowski 1978:197).
“En el tambo de Mayacatama y asiento de Maranga en este valle de Lima termino y

jurisdicción de la çibdad de los Reyes Nueva Castilla llamada Peru martes nueve dias
del mes de abril del año de nuestro Salvador Jesucristo de myll e quinientos e
cuarenta e nueve años…” (Rostworoski 2002: 337).
303
The mention of a tambo (inn) called “Mayacatama” is very interesting but which exact
location is currently unknown. In this document, Maranga appeared also as “Malanca”.
Rostworowski (1978:88) argued that this could be the coastal pronunciation of the name of this
polity:
“…os deposito el principal Chayavilca señor del pueblo de Malanca con todos sus
indios e principales e pueblos sujetos al dicho cacique…” (Rostworowski 1978:196).
“Luego pareçio presente el cacique principal deste dicho repartimiento y con tres
principales al qual le preguntamos si es él el cacique y señor natural deste dicho
repartimiento dixo que lo es y le byene derechamente conforme a su usanza y que se
llama don Antonio y es cristiano y antes se llamaba Marcatanta-preguntámosle sy tres
que alli truxo y dixo son sus principales sy lo son y sy falta alguno dixo que los son y
que no tyene mas porque todos son muertos y que dize el y ellos de la manera
siguiente:
Don Antonio cacique pricipal
Chatana principal
Yana Chuqui principal pescador
Çimalo principal de los mytimaes mochanos (sic) del valle de Chimo-los cuales tres
principales declaraba y declaró ser sus sujetos y no tiene mas y que están poblados en
rancherías y casas de carrizo (Rostworoski 2002: 337).
In this part of the document it is said that the lord of Maranga was “Marcatanta”, and had
three secondary lords under his control: Chatana, Yana Chuqui and Cimalo, lords of the people
from the valley of Chimo (Moche River Valley in the North Cost) who settled in Maranga as
mitimaes (people moved by the Inca administration as colonists). Only fourteen years before the
304
founding of the City of the Kings, people in Maranga lived on ranches, with very simple houses
made of reeds.
The next information in the “Visit of 1549” is very important, with facts about the economy of
the polity. It is said that people cultivated maize, sweet potatoes, beans, chili, peanuts, and, in the
past, coca. They made their own clothing using cotton, and exchanged products with the people
from Collique. The tribute that they gave to the Inca state was transported to Cusco and
Tomebamba (now in Ecuador):
“Después de declarado como dicho es se le pregunto que se cría y coge en las

tierras que suyas tiene dixeron que se da trigo maiz camotes frisoles y yucas y agi y
mani y que coca se solía dar pero que agora no la cogen por no tener yndios”
(Rostworoski 1978: 219).
“Preguntósele si hazen ropa de algodón dixeron que la an menester para su bestir y
que cuando tenía muchos yndios hazían mucha
Preguntósele que contrataciones tienen con los comarcanos y los comarcanos con
ellos dixeron que algunas veces van a contratar con los de Collique y que lleban para
contratar con ellos pescado salado y agi y las cosas que se crían en su tierra y que
rescatan algodón y carne de charqui y alguna ropa quando tienen necesidad y que
rescatan en el tianguis de Lima
Preguntóseles se tienen minas de oro plata u otro metal-dixeron que no las
tienen//ni nunca las tubieron ni sauen quien las tenga
Preguntóseles que solían dar y tributar a los Yngas pasados asi de oro o plata ropa
y álo demas que se cría en su tierra dixeron que no se les acuerda más de que saben
que se llebaban donde quiera que estaba en el Cusco o Tomebamba ropa mays
pescado salado agi y coca y lo demas que se cria en su tierra y que la cantidad que
hera ni la gente que yba a servirle que no lo saue porque hera moço y los viejos todos
son muertos” (Rostworoski 1978: 220).
305
The Spanish officer entered the politie’s lands in order to locate the people and their towns. But
he only found ninety-three persons who lived in very simple houses made of reeds:
“Fuesemos a la cassa del dicho cacique don Antonio y en ella hallamos un pueblo
alrededor de carrizos y en él ningun yndio sino hera tres o quatro que estaban con el
dicho cacique…” (Rostworoski 1978:220).
“Yten visitamos otros ranchos de carrizos que segund lo que en el vimos y mugeres y
muchachos nos pareció abría tres indios…
Yten visitamos otro pueblo que está junto con yndios de don Gonzalo cacique de Lima
que segund las mugeres casas fuegos y muchachos nos pareçio abria doze indios
(Rostworoski 1978: 221).
“Visitamos en la costa de la mar por lo que pudimos entender y por los ranchos que
nos mostraron ser de yndios de // este repartimiento que pudimos averiguar la verdad
por estar juntos yndios de cacique de Lima y del de Pachacámac y de otros quinze
yndios casados y parecenos que antes abría mas.
Visitamos un pueblo que está junto a este dicho tambo los mytimaes mochicas en el
qual nos pareció conforme e lo que vimos y fuegos y mugeres y muchacho abría
quinze indios casados.
Preguntamos en todas las rancherías que bisitamos do estaban los yndios y
respondían las mugeres que las chacaras y otras heran muertos y vimos indios pero
todos huyan” (Rostworoski 1978: 221).
This was a rural environment with simple houses, irrigation channels and agricultural fields. It
is important to note that the population of the polity was disappearing and that the Spanish
officers aroused fear in the population, causing them to escape when they saw the Spanish.
306
Diego de Dávila declared in a Proof dated on November the 5th 1568, that his father in-law
Nicolás de Ribera received the polity of Maranga as an encomienda, when Jauja was the capital of
the Spanish Government. This document confirms that Malanai was Maranga:
“…por entonces era uno de los buenos repartimientos deste reyno e que se tenía en
mas de lo descubierto por ser los caciques del privado del Inga y andar en su
compañamiento, y venido el dicho marques al valle de Lima pareciéndole más
acomodado sitio para poblar esta ciudad la despobló de Xauxa y la puso en este valle
y entendiendo el dicho repartimiento de Maranga no bastaua para me sustentar y que
con el no estaua gratificados los dichos mis servicios me encomendó los indios yana
yungas y otros caciques e indios serranos…” (Rostworowski 1978: 89).
In 1585 the main lord of Maranga was Diego Chayavilca, who lived in the town of La
Magdalena. His will dated on December the 12, was published by Adanaqué (2008-2009) and has
very important information. It said that his father was named also Chayavilca:
“…yo don Diego Chayavilca cacique principal de Maranga redusido en el pueblo de

la Ma[g]dalena de la encomienda de Sancho de Rivera. Hijo de Chayavilca señor de
Maranga, difunto…” (Adanaqué 2008-2009: 45).
It mentioned several personages, among them, the lords of Guadca, Callao, and La Magdalena,
because he owed them money:
“Item. declaro que devo a don Pedro Cacique de Guadca seis pesos …”. [f. 608
v.](46)
“Item. declaro que devo a Martín Guaicho principal del Callao cinco pesos …”. [f.
608 v.](46)
307
“Item. declaro que me deve don Juan cacique principal de la Ma[g]dalena quatro
pesos …”. [f. 609 v.] (Adanaque 2008-2009:47).
A very important part of the document consigned the names of several lands that this lord had in
the valley of Maranga channel: Quilcum, Pichiuco, Alcacay, Tambuna, Chilaguat, Guayamolca,
Chilcaguayca, Vichoguayca, Casamarca, Llasacama, Cuyllatita, Cayarico, Collata, Mato, Colcán,
Guayaca, Chacaca, Casamalca y Capaguati, a salt lake on his property in Callao and two towns,
the “Old Town of Maranga” and Pampaguayca:
“Item. declaro que tengo en el dicho valle de Maranga una hanegada de tierras mia
propia que se llama Quilcum…” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:47).
“Item. declaro que tengo ocho hanegadas de tierras en Pichiuco…” (Adanaqué 2008-
2009:47).
“Item. tengo en el dicho valle treze hanegadas de tierra que se llama Alcacay…”
(Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. tengo otra hanegada de tierras en el dicho valle que se llama Tanbuna…”
(Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. declaro que tengo una guerta en el pueblo viejo de Maranga…” (Adanaqué
2008-2009:48).
“Item. tengo en el dicho valle otras quatro hanegadas de tierra en la parte donde
dicen Chilaguat y otras quatro hanegadas en el dicho valle en Guayamolca…”
(Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. otras quatro hanegadas de tierras en el dicho valle i sitio llamado
Chilcaguayca” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. tengo seis hanegadas e media en el dicho valle llamadas Vichoguayca”
(Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. mas otra hanegada en el dicho valle llamado Casamarca” (Adanaqué 2008-
2009:48).
308
“Item. otra hanegada en el asiento de Llasacama en el dicho valle” (Adanaqué 2008-
2009:48).
“Item. otra hanegada que linda con estas de Llasacama que se llama Cuyllatita y otra
hanegada e media en Cayarico i en el asiento de Pampaguayca otra media hanegada
de sembraduraen el dicho valle” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. tengo en el dicho valle en la parte que se llama Collata otras tres hanegadas
de tierras de sembradura” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. otras tres hanegadas en el dicho valle que se llaman Mato” (Adanaqué 2008-
2009:48).
“Item. otras tres hanegadas en haguas que en el dicho valle junto a una era que está
al presente” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. declaro que tengo unas salinas en el Callao” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. tengo otras dos hanegas de trigo junto a la chacara de Palomares que se
llaman Colcan donde tengo fecho un alfalfar” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. otra hanega llamada por mi Guyaca” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. mando se den a doña Juana mi sobrina mujer de Cristoval hanegada y media
de tierras que se llama Chacaca” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. declaro que tengo un hijo bastardo questa en el Sercado que se llama Miguel
Choqui al qual mando se le de una hanegada de tierra nombrada Casamalca”
(Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
“Item. mando a Andres Nique alcalde ¿? Ques al presente de la Ma[g]dalena una
hanegada de tierras que se llaman Capaguati” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:48).
It must be taken into account, when analyzing the Colonial Period documents, that the
possession and use of the lands by the indigenous lords during the Colonial Period had many
changes. That is why it is incorrect simply to extend the Colonial Period situation to earlier times.
Property and lease must be differentiated. Property could be traced to pre-Colonial times, but the
lease is strictly Colonial. For example, in the National General Archive there is a 1599 document
indicating that Juan Caspacsi, Lord of La Magdalena, agrees to pay to the son and widow of the
309
Spaniard Luis Fernández de Sepúlveda 150 pesos since he lent him and the Lord of Huatca, that
amount of money for the lease of land in Maranga:
“…los ciento cinquenta/ pesos dellos del arrendamiento de/ las tierras de maranga
que yo y el dicho/ luis fernandez de sepulveda difunto /marido de la dicha ana martin/
arrendamos en compañaia de don/ pedro chunvichanan cacique de guatica/ para las
sembrar e por hacer mucho/ el dicho Luis fernandez de sepulveda/ antes de hacer la
sementera/ yo el dicho don juan casapaci tome las /dichas tierras por el tanto para
ha/cer la sementera en compañía/ del dicho don juan chunvichanan/ (f1 vta) como la
hice y esto ciento cin/quenta pesos el dicho luis fernandes/ de sepulveda difunto los
pago luego/ de contado ansi conmo se hico el arren/damiento de las dichas tierras a
doña/ Luisa muger de don diego cacique de ma/ranga cuyas eran las dichas
tierras…” (Carta de obligación 1599, encontrada en Titulos de una chacra y tierras
que Pedro de Gárate poseía en el valle de la Magdalena 1641: AGN Leg 10 C 241
F1).
Unfortunately, the document does not indicate why the lords of La Magdalena and Huatca had
the need to lease land in Maranga. In any case, this indicates the changes in the possession and
use of lands in the Rimac River Valley during Colonial times.
Bernabé Cobo wrote that two nations were in the Central Coast, one located in the north from
Carabayllo to Chancay and the second in the south from Carabayllo to Pachacamac, each one with
its own language. With the arrival of the Incas, the area was divided into three administrative
units called “Hunos”, each one with 10,000 families: Caraguayllo, Maranga and Surco:
“Antes de la venida de los españoles á esta tierra estaba este valle y comarca muy
poblado de indios, como lo muestran las ruinas de sus pueblos; eran dos las naciones
que lo habilitaban, con lenguas distintas, las cuales aun conservan hoy lo poco que
310
queda de ambas. Los naturales de Caraguayllo y sus términos eran de una nación,
cuya lengua corre desde allí adelante por el corregimiento de Chancay y vanda del
Setentrion, y desde el mismo pueblo de Caraguayllo hasta el de Pachacamac habitaba
la otra nación; dividíase este valle, conforme al gobierno de los Reyes Incas, en tres
Unos ó gobernaciones de á diez mil familias cada una; el pueblo de Caraguayllo era
la cabeza de la primera, el de Maranga, que cae en medio del valle, de la segunda, y
la tercera el de Surco; era este postrero pueblo el mayor de todos, y estaba asentado
en la falda oriental de Morro Solar, donde al presente permanecen sus ruinas y se
echa de ver haber habido muy grande población; vénse las casas del cacique, con las
paredes pintadas de varias figuras, una muy suntuosa pieza ó templo y otros muchos
edificios, que todavía están en pié, sin faltarle mas que la cubierta; á estos pueblos,
como á cabezas y residencias del gobierno, obedecían innumerables lugarejos de
corta vecindad que había en sus limites, de los cuales apenas queda memoria, ni aun
de los nombres que tenían, mas que una infinidad de paredones y adoratorios que hay
por todo el valle, que suelen impedirnos no gocemos libremente su espaciosa llanura:
vánlos poco á poco derribando y demoliendo los terremotos y las acequias, mas con
todo eso durarán por muchos siglos para memoria del tiempo de la gentilidad de los
indios” (Cobo 1882: 41-42).
Cobo was the first to recognize the existence of a settlement hierarchy in the valley. Large
sites, like the ancient town of Surco (known now as Armatambo), were the main towns and
exercised control over other smaller towns distributed along the valley.
Information available about the massive pyramidal constructions that existed in the valley of
Maranga channel is very scarce. Calancha in his 1638 chronicle mentioned that the Huaca of
Mateo Salado was a temple of the fishermen and then an Inca palace. This chronicler stated that in
this place lived the French Lutheran Mateo Salado who was burnt by the Inquisition in 1573:
311
“Piensan mal los que dicen que el tenplo i Huaca principal que tuvo este valle, es la
que oy vulgarmente se llama la Huaca de Mateo Salado; quedósele este nonbre
porque vivía allí retirado uno deste nombre Francés, a quien veneravan muchos por
ermitaño, penitente i solitario; i el Santo Oficio alló que era erege Luterano perverso;
quemolo el año de mil i quinientos i setenta i tres, i está su sanbenito en esta
Catedral” (Calancha 1638: Tomo 4:150).
“…el que se llama de Mateo Salado era del Rey Inga,…” (Calancha 1638: Tomo
4:150).
“El primer auto público de la Fe que en Lima celebró, fue el año de mil i quinientos
setenta i tres, donde entre otros quemaron a Mateo Salado erege contumaz, que vivía
retirado en una guaca que está media legua de Lima, que en la antiguedad fue tenplo
de los Indios pescadores, i oy se llama la guaca de Mateo Salado; aquí vivía este
erege solitario, con demonstraciones de ermitaño penitente, descubrió el veneno, i
pagolo en ceniças” (Calancha 1638: Tomo 4:130).
María Rostworoski argued that the potters in the valley of Maranga had their own temple, a
huaca located in the Estate of Chacra Alta. This place had a spring that proportionated enough
water for the pottery production. This spring was called “de las adventuras” (the adventures)
(AGN Aguas 3.3.18.3, fol. 30). Actually, the paragraph of the document with this information is
this one:
“Don Francisco Antonio de Solorzano su su maior/ entedimiento paresco ante VE y

digo que el /caballero d- Domingo Ramirez de Arellano/ se ha propuesto no perdonar
medio alguno/ de obstilizarme y perjudicarme, asi es que/ se ha querido hacer dueño
de una Guaca/Olleria sobre que traigo pleito con el.” (AGN Juzgado de Aguas
3.3.18.3 Año 1810 F1).
312
In the cited paragraph, only the existence of a huaca called “Ollería” is mentioned. But it is
wrong to conclude from this that the site was a temple of Pre-colonial potters. It could be a
Colonial Period center of pottery production and the huaca was only located on the lands under
litigation, and that is why it was mentioned. Because the reference is very vague, it is difficult to
know with exactitude what the “Olleria” Huaca could be.
“… el dr dn/ Nicolas Flores Regidor Perpetuo y Juez de/ Aguas en el años pasado de
1633 distribuyo/ las aguas del Puquio que se denominaba/ la fuente de la adventuras
que es este mismo/ cuyas aguas se ha querido apropiar don/ domingo: entre cinco
interesados que fueron/Gabriel Romero, Marcos de Bergara, Nicolas Estacio/ el
doctor Juan de Morales de Aramburu, y los/herederos de Domingo Hernandez: las
partes de todos/ estos se hayan reunidas en mi Hazienda lla/nada Chacra alta” (AGN
Juzgado de Aguas 3.3.18.3 Año 1810 F 29 vta).
It is mentioned that the “spring of the Adventures”was in the Chacra Alta estate, but it is
unknown exactly where its location was, or why it received that curious name. In the 1944 aerial
picture there are two reservoirs on this estate. It could be that one or other existed at the beginning
of the 19th century, but by 1944 dissapeared. In the same judicial litigation, but in a document
from 1810 deposited in the Historical Archive of the Riva-Agüero Institute, it is stated that the
Chacra Alta estate was irrigated by two springs, or reservoirs, that could be the same identified in
the 1944 aerial picture.
“la toma de la Ase/quia que pertenece a mis Haciendas, situadas en/Bellavista, la

qual desde su fundacion se abrió/ y constituyo para recoger las aguas que salen/ de
otros dos Puquios que están a la otra vanda/ del camino Real” (RA – D – 16 F1).
313
The most ancient documental information about the Maranga Reservoir, located west of Huaca
Tres Palos, is in a document from the National General Archive from 1730 (Protocolos Notariales
Arredondo 1730):
“En la ciudad de los reyes del Peru en veinte y dos de Marzo del/ mill setecientos y
treinta años antes el escribano público y testigos pa/recio don Domingo Chayguac
Marido de doña Urbana Casamusa/ a quien doi fe que conozco y confeso aver
recevido del Doctor Don/ Gregorio Villalta Presbitero Veinte y sinco pesos de a ocho
reales/ por lo corrido de un año del arrendamiento de unas tierras que/ siembra junto
al estanque de la hacienda en el Valle de/ Maranga que se cumplira a primero de
Abril….”
Finally, an “Old Town of Maranga” is mentioned in the will of Maria de la Encarnación, main
Lady of La Magdalena town in 1696:
“…y linda estas tierras por la cabezera con las de la comunidad de el dicho pueblo y
tierras que dividen por unas tapias a las tierras de los indios del pueblo viejo de
Maranga y vuelto el rostro al mar con las barrancas de el y tierras de la dicha
comunidad…” (Adanaqué 2008-2009:54).
Given the imprecision of the information, the exact location this town is unknown. ¿It could be
the south section of the Maranga Group? But we cannot be certain.
7.7. La Legua:
Was a small town that grew around the church and convent of “Our Lady of Carmel”. It was
called La Legua (“The League”) because it was located one league from the City of the Kings on
314
the road between Lima and Callao. It was founded in 1611 with the name of “Capilla de Nuestra
Señora del Carmen de la Legua” in the lands of Pedro Gonzales Cano in 1611 (AGN Juzgado
privativo de Aguas 3.3.1.16 Año 1619).
In his 1629 chronicle Vásquez de Espinoza briefly described this town:
“Ay en el comedio del Callao, y ciudad de Lima ricas chacras, y labores con
sumptuosas caserias, y a la legua esta vna casa, y Conuento de nuestra Señora del
Carmen con sus armas, que edificó Domingo Gomes de Silua, varon de virtud, y
buena vida...” (Vásquez de Espinoza 1948:423).
There is no information in the Colonial Period documents about the numerous archaeologial
sites that were located close to the Convent of La Legua or in La Legua valley.
7.8. Callao:
Callao is the name of the main Peruvian port that has served the city of Lima since the
beginnings of the Colonial Period. Callao is not a Quechua word but Spanish and makes reference
to the numerous stones in the beaches of the port. The chronicler Murua said that in 1590:
“Dos leguas de la ciudad de los Reyes está su puerto dicho el Callao a causa de las
muchas piedras que ay en él” (Murúa 1962-1964 Tomo II: 204-207).
One of the first references of the port was in 1537 and mentioned the existence of an old tambo
and some “walls of the Indians” in the place where the port was built:
315
En la dicha çibdad de los Reis en seys días del mes de março del dicho año de myll
quinientos e treinta e syete años…
diego Ruyz En este dia su señoria e los dichos señores dixeron que por quanto diego
Ruyz bezino desta çibdad a dado una petiçíon en que pide que le den licencia para
hedificar e fazer un tanbo en el puerto desta çibdad en el asyento de otro tanbo viejo
que estaba en el dicho puerto para que Reçiba las merCaderia de los navios que al
dicho puerto vinieren pagándole por la guarda della lo que Justo fuere…” (Lee and
Bromley 1935-1962 Tomo 1: 136-137).
“Eneste cabildo ynformo a los dichos señores Justiçia e Regimiento que el (sic) vio
e señalo al dicho alguacil mayor Alonso de Castro junto al desembarcadero del
puerto de la mar un sytio de dozientos pies de quadra junto a un paredón fecho en
tiempo de indios que entra en el dicho sitio el qual es sin perjuyzio de tercero…” (Lee
and Bromley 1935-1962, Volume 4:109).
However, the area was not known as “Callao”. The first reference to this name was from Cieza
de León in 1553:
“… Callao de Lima, que es el puerto de la ciudad de los Reyes” (Cieza 1962:41).
It is unknown if Callao was a port or important town in Pre-colonial times. At the beginning of
the Colonial Period the port was used by fishermen, who, ridding their boats and carrying their
nets, went to the sea, as was described by the chronicler Acosta in 1590:
“Aunque es más menuda, no deja de ser digna de referirse también otra pesquería
que usan de ordinario los indios en la mar. Hacen unos como manojos de juncia, o
espadañas secas bien atadas, que allá llaman balsas, y llévanlas a cuestas hasta la
mar, donde arrojándolas con presteza suben en ellas, y así caballeros se entran la
316
mar adentro, y bogando con unos canaletes de un lado y de otro se van una y dos
leguas en alta mar a pescar; llevan en los dichos manojos sus redes y cuerdas, y
sustentándose sobre las balsas, lanzan su red, y están pescando grande parte de la
noche, o del día, hasta que hinchen su medida, con que dan la vuelta muy contentos.
Cierto, verlos ir a pescar en el Callao de Lima era para mí cosa de gran recreación,
porque eran muchos, y cada uno en su balsilla caballero, o sentado a porfía cortando
las olas del mar, que es bravo allí donde pescan, parecían los tritones, o Neptunos que
pintan sobre el agua. En llegando a tierra, sacan su barco a cuestas, y luego le
deshacen; y tienden por aquella playa las espadañas para que se enjuguen y sequen”
(Acosta 1962:98-99).
Pedro León de Portocarrero could see the same scene in the Seventeenth Century:
“Todos los indios que viven por los lugares referidos de Pachacama al Callao son
pescadores y pescan por toda esta costa mucho pescado, y entran a pescar en unas
balsillas feitas de totora, y todas las veces que va entrando navío al Callao sale un
indio en una de estas balsas a reconocer y preguntar qué navío es y de donde viene y
se vuelve a tierra a dar aviso” (León Portocarrero 1958: 66).
The name of the area where the port was built before the Conquest is unknown. In the early
Colonial Period documents there are two indigenous names close to the port: Chuica and Pitipiti.
Chuica appears in a document quoted by Carlos A. Romero (1936) who partially transcribed it,
though he did not indicate where he consulted it. The document refers to a trial between the
indigenous lords of Callao and the religious “Order of Juan de Dios”. The lawsuit was because
Mother Francisca Ignacia Manchihuila of the Sanctorium of Copacabana, and descended from the
Lords of Callao, had given lands to the order in a place called "Chuica", located "in the street
going towards Mar Brava", in exchange for building a hospital and administering medicines to the
317
indigenous of Callao gathered in the villages of "San Miguel Mazora Pitipiti" or "Pitipiti Biejo"
and "San Carlos de Pitipiti" or "Pitipiti from the River". However, having possession of such
lands for more than a hundred years, the order of “San Juan de Dios” had failed to construct the
hospital. Romero did not indicate the date of the trial, although as part of the file there is a will
dated to 1657, so it should be after that date.
The location of Chuica, from what was cited by Romero, is uncertain. Taking into account
the geographical position of “Mar Brava” and the urban area of Colonial Period Callao, Chuica
should be situated somewhere south or southeast from the San Felipe Fortress, near what is
known now as “Barrio Fiscal N° 4”. Also, there is no evidence that this place was a town, as was
suggested by Quiroz (2007: 28-31) and Holmberg et al. (1990: fig. 61). It seems to be one of
many pieces of land with its own name distributed through the valley.
Pitipiti was mentioned for the first time in the document cited by Romero which we only know
that was written before 1657. The next earliest reference is in “Mugaburu’s Diary”, September the
1st 1674, when described how the Viceroy Baltazar de Cueva, supervised troops and facilities in
Callao:
“Sábado primero de Septiembre de 1674 fue S.E. al Callao y este mismo dia pasó
muestra de la infantería y artillería y gente de mar y se embarcó en la falua y fue a
ver a las naos de S.M. Y hubo gran salva de artillería de mar y tierra y miró toda la
muralla embarcado y en Piti-piti se desembarcó y vido las lanchas nuevas en la
atarazana. Y allí se metió en la carroza y se vino a Lima”.
In a map drawn in 1684 Pitipti is located SE of the Colonial Callao next to a dockyard. In a
map of Lima and Callao from 1712 “Piti-piti Nuevo” and “Piti.piti Viejo” were situated on both
sides of Callao (Charney 2001: map. 1.4). Another early reference is in the will of Gregoria
318
Guacho Luyando, descendent from the indigenous lords of Callao and Surco, dated on May 24 th
1746, when she mentioned a house close to the path to Pitiiti: “…con la muralla y la portada que
va a Pitipite” (Adanaqué 1993:44).
Gregorio de Alcedo also described two Pitpiti towns in 1788, where some indigenous fishermen
lived:
“PITIPITI, Viejo) Pueblo del Corregimiento y Provincia del Cercado en el Perú, es

como un arrabal del Callao, y en que solo habitan algunos indios pescadores.
Otro Pueblo hay en la misma Provincia con este nombre, y el aditamento de
Nuevo, para distinguirlo de aquel de quien está muy cerca” (Alcedo 1788:72).
Was “Pitipiti Viejo” a town of Pre-colonial origin? It was an indigenous town that emerged
during the Colonial Period along with the port? It is difficult to answer those questions. But is a
fact that there is no document before 1674 that mentions Pitipiti.
Although not much is known about Pre-colonial populations of Callao, from what was
transcribed by Romero (1936), it is possible to conclude that there was a lineage of indigenous
lords in Callao. The existence of an indigenous Lord of Callao is also in the will of the lord of
Maranga in 1585:
“Item. declaro que devo a Martín Guaicho principal del Callao cinco pesos …”
(Adanaqué 2008-2009:47).
María Rostworowski (2002:258) found a file, from the Seventeenth Century in the
Archiepiscopal Archive of Lima, with an inscription on the cover mentioning Don Marcos Chiuila
319
whose great-great-grandfather was Manchimpula, lord of Callao before the arrival of the
Spaniards:
“Este libro es del capitán Don Marcos Chiuilca descendiente destos señores (roto)
caciques deste puerto del Callao y se llamó el tatarabuelo Manchimpula, cacique
desde antes que çe descubriera este rreyno por el rey de España y para que conste en
todo el tiempo ser cierto – todo lo que estuviese asentado en el de tratos y contratos y
demás cosas para… estar asentado”
“año de 1662 registro de pago Don Pedro Manchi Pula Caruajal cacique principal y
gouernador de los naturales deste Puerto del Callao (AAL, Sección Registro e
Finanzas, año 1635-1671, Leg. 2).
In the document transcribed by Romero it is mentioned that Francisca Ignacia Manchipula, was
daughter of Pedro Carbajal Manchipula indigenus lord of Callao (Romero 1936). She was the first
abbess from San Lazaro Convent of the Copacabana Virgin in 1691 (Angulo 1913-1917,
Cárdenas 1980:40). That information confirms the existence of the lineage of the indigenous lords
of Callao that existed until the Eigthteenth Century (Rostworowski 1978:106).
There are two surnames related with the lords of Callao: Guaicho or Guacho in 1585 and
Manchipula before the Conquest and in 1662. This situation could signify a duality of power in
Pre-colonial times as in Maranga and Lima?
In the Colonial Period references about Callao, the existence of a lagoon of salt water, where
people took baths, is also mentioned. That was registered by José Ignacio Lequanda at the end of
the Eigthteenth Century:
“En este sitio y como a un cuarto de legua del Callao se halla la famosa laguna de
agua salada donde de poco tiempo a esta parte se han frecuentado los baños: es el
320
lugar más delicioso y cómodo para este fin pues ofreciendo un piso blando de blanca
menuda arena se gradúa el fondo que se quiere… (Odriozola 1863-1877:373).
“En el segundo trozo de la otra parte de la laguna hay un resto de barracas… se

extienden hasta cerca del Castillo de San Miguel, a cuyas inmediaciones se hallaba el
barrio de los indios pescadores en el puerto que nombran de Pitipiti; hasta que
desalojaron el sitio en el citado año de 97, por las razones que quedan expuestas, y
con este motivo se situaron en la sabana del costado de Bella-vista a un lado del
camino nuevo” (Odriozola 1863-1877:376).
A channel that was used by the boats located in the port is also mentioned, although based on
its descriptions it seems to be of Colonial Period origin:
“Así para la aguada de las embarcaciones como para la población del Callao, se
conduce un cequión descubierto desde un puquial que dista media legua y al principio
del pueblo se introduce por una cañería de cal y ladrillo, que va a salir a un pilón con
seis caños de bronce situado en la calle principal de San Miguel, donde se provee
todo el vecindario y marina…” (Odriozola 1863-1877:376).
The same channel was mentioned by Vázquez de Espinosa by 1629:
“Por la vanda del Norte del puerto del Callao, ay vn riachuelo pequefio, donde hazen
las armadas, y naos agua;” (Vázquez de Espinosa 1948:422).
This channel is also in the “Descripción del Puerto del Callao” in the Heliche Atlas from 1655
(Sánchez et al. 2004, map 70).
321
Stevenson, at the end of the Colonial Period, said that he saw the ruins of an indigenous village
between Lima and Callao:
“On the right hand side, going from the port, may be seen the ruins of an indian
village, which was built before the discovery of South America. Some of the old walls
are left, formed of clay, about two feet thick and six feet high, and which perhaps owe
their present existence to the total absence of rain in this country”(Stevenson 1829
Volume I:140).
The information given by Stevenson is too vague for a precise location of this site. It was close
to the O’Higgins Road (now Buenos Aires Avenue). Before citing this site, Stevenson mentioned
Bellavista and Callao. Taking into account the urban areas of Callao and Bellavista in the
Nineteenth Century (map in Middendorf 1894 Volume II:366-37), this site could be situated
somewhere close to Guisse street in Callao in “Barrio Fiscal Nº 2” neighborhood.
7.9 The Inca Conquest of the valley of Lima and Pachacamac:
Cieza de León in 1553 mentioned that Tupac Inca Yupanqui conquered the Peruvian Central
Coast, coming from the north after defeating the Chimus. He consulted the Oracle of Pachacamac
and made sacrifices and festivals:
Y con esta orden, el Inca anduvo hasta que llegó al valle de Pachacama, donde estaba
el templo tan antiguo y devoto de los Yuncas, muy deseado de ver por él; y como llegó
á aquel valle, afirman que solamente quisiera que hubiera el templo del sol, más como
aquel era tan honrado y tenido por los naturales, no se atrevió, y contentóse con que
se hiciese casa del sol grande y con mamaconas y sacerdotes, para que hiciesen
322
sacrificios conforme á su religión. Muchos indios dicen que el mesmo Inca habló con
el demonio que estaba en el ídolo de Pachacama, y que le oyó como era el hacedor
del mundo, y otros desatinos que no pongo por no convenir; y que el Inca le suplicó le
avisase con qué servicio seria más honrado y alegre, y que respondió que le
sacrificasen mucha sangre humana y de ovejas.
Pasado lo sobredicho, cuentan que fueron hechos grandes sacrificios en
Pachacama por Tupac Inca Yupanqui, y grandes fiestas; las cuales pasadas, dio la
vuelta al Cuzco (Cieza 1880:220-221).
Cieza mentioned also that the Inca Guayna Capac, son of Tupac Inca Yupanqui, went to Lima
and Pachacamac, where he had festivals, consulted the oracle and made donations to the temple:
“Pues pasando adelante, hizo en Chimo y en Guañape, Guarmey, Guaura, Lima y en

los más valles, lo quél era servido que hiciesen; y como llegase á Pachacama, hizo
grandes fiestas y muchos bailes y borracheras; y los sacerdotes, con sus mentiras, le
decían las maldades que solían, inventadas con su astucia, y aún algunas por boca del
mesmo Demonio, que en aquellos tiempos es público hablaba á estos tales; y Guayna
Capac les dio, á lo que dicen, más de cient arrobas de oro y mili de plata y otras joyas
y esmeraldas, con que se adornó más de lo que estaba el templo del sol y el antiguo de
Pachacama” (Cieza 1922:251).
Garcilaso de la Vega in 1609 argued that it was Capac Yupanqui, during the regime of Inca
Pachacutec, who annexed the Central Coast peacefully from the south, after the conquest of a
kingdom ruled by a personage named Chuquimancu. Garcilaso said that the Pachacamac and
Lima valleys belonged of a powerful lord named Cuismancu, who refused to be conquered by the
Incas:
323
“EL GRAN SEÑOR Cuismancu estaba apercibido de guerra, porque, como la hubiese
visto en su vecindad, teniendo que los Incas habían de ir sobre sus tierras, se había
apercibido para las defender. Y así, rodeado de sus capitanes, y soldados, oyó los
mensajeros del Inca y respondió diciendo que no tenían sus vasallos necesidad de otro
señor, que para ellos y sus tierras bastaba él solo, y que las leyes y costumbres que
guardaban eran las que sus antepasados les habían dejad; que se hallaban bien con
elas; que no tenían necesidad de otras leyes y que no querían repudiar sus dioses, que
eran muy principales, porque entre otros adoraban al Pachacámac, que según habían
oído decir, era el hacedor y sustentador del universo;…; que suplicaban al Inca o le
requerían los dejase libres, pues no tenían necesidad de su imperio” (Garcilaso 1995:
394).
The Incas resolved to use force to subjugate Cuismancu and his kingdom, although they
preferred to establish negotiations:
“El Rey Cuismancu salió con una muy buena banda de gente, a defender su tierra. El
general Cápac Yupanqui le envió a decir que tuviese por bien que no peleasen hasta
que hubiesen hablado más largo acerca de sus dioses; porque le hacían saber que los
Incas, demás de adorar al Sol, adoraban también a Pachacámac, y que no le hacían
templos ni ofrecían sacrificios por no haber visto ni conocerle ni saber qué cosa
fuese” (Garcilaso 1995: 395).
The Incas also offered to worship the Rimac idol in exchange for the coastal people
worshiping the Sun, official god of the Empire:
“Y que los Reyes Incas, además de adorar a Pachacámac y tenerle por hacedor y
sustentador del universo, tendrían de allí en adelante por oráculo y cosa sagrada al
Rímac, que los yuncas adoraban, y que pues los Incas se ofrecían a venerar al ídolo
324
Rímac, que los yuncas, en correspondencia, por vía de hermandad, adorasen y
tuviesen por dios al Sol…” (Garcilaso 1995:395).
Finally, after many negotiations, Cuismancu agreed to submit his kingdom to the Inca Empire:
“Con las condiciones referidas, se asentaron las paces entre el general Cápac
Yupanqui y el Rey Cuismancu, al cual se le dio noticia de las leyes y costumbres que
el Inca mandaba guardar. Las cuales aceptó con mucha prontitud, porque le
parecieron justas y honestas, y lo mismo las ordenanzas de los tributos que habían de
pertenecer al Sol y al Inca” (Gracilaso 1995:396).
Santa Cruz Pachacuti wrote in 1613 that it was Pachacutec Inca who conquered Lima and
Pachacamac before he defeated the Chimus:
“Y assi parte para la prouincia de Limacyungas, en donde hallo tantos pueblesuelos,

cada uno con sus uacas, y tambien hallo el Cuspiuca y Pomauaca y Ayssavillca, gran
diablo. Y assi llega a Pachacama y passa hazia Chincha, en donde allo otra guaca; y
de allí buelbe a la misma Pachacama en donde se descansso algunos días” (Santa
Cruz Pachacuti 1993:223).
Around 1615 the chronicler Felipe Guaman Poma wrote that the captains Inga Maytac and
Inga Urcon conquered Lima during the Yahuar Huaca Inca government:
“El sétimo capitán, Inga Maytac, Inga Urcon, fue valerosos y grandes capitanes
esforzados, fue hijos de Yauar Uácac Inga y conquistó las provincias de… Lima,
Lunauna, Sullco, Chincha y Uarco” (Guamán Poma 1993:122-125).
325
Fray Antonio de la Calancha argued that it was Tupac Inca Yupanqui who conquered Lima:
“Conquistó estos valles, aquel celebrado por sabio i justiciero Topa Inga Yupangui
décimo Rey desta Monarquía, que fue aguelo de Atagualpa, a quien mató en
Cajamarca Don Francisco Piçarro. Topa Inga conquistó desde Lunaguaná asta Quito
sujetando estos valles, i los que medían por estas costas” (Calancha 1638 Tomo
2:148).
Bernabé Cobo pointed out in 1653 that it was Pachacuti Inca who conquered the Central Coast
but from the South after the conquest of the Chincha, Huarco and Lunaguana kingdoms. His
version is very similar to Garcilaso’s and perhaps he took it from him:
“Once the Inca had achieved this victory, the indians pacefully yielded obedience to
him throughout the valleys of Mala, Chilca, Pachacama, Limac, Chncay, Guaura, and
La Barranca, along with the restup to the Valley of Chimo” (Cobo 1979:139).
7.10 Wrong information:
Some authors that wrote about the ethnohistory of the valley of Lima, made several assertions
obtained, apparently, from Colonial Period documents, which became so popular that they are
assumed as true. But, when those are contrasted with the original documents some are clearly
erroneous. I discuss three of the most important cases here: “Sina”, the supposedly Aymara name
and San Lorenzo Island; the history of the lord Sinchipuma and the five huacas in Lima’s Major
Square; and Chacalea or Chaya-calca, the supposed indigenous name of La Magdalena town.
326
Carlos Romero (1936) popularized the idea that the name of the island situated in front of the
Porto of Callao was called “Sina” in antiquity. This information was obtained by him from the
Lopez de Velasco chronicle from 1574 where the island is named Gina:
“Callao, Puerto de Lima”
“La isla de Gina, á la entrada del puerto del Callao, que le hace abrigo como arriba
queda descrito” (López de Velasco1894: 492).
Romero thought that Gina could be a transcription mistake and, probably, the true name was
Sina that in the Aymara language means “sterility”, due to the extreme aridity of the island
(Romero1936).
It is true that there was a problem with the modern transcription, but not in the way that
Romero imagined. In the same chronicle, López de Velasco describing the convents in the city of
Lima said:
“…háse fundado en este año otro monasterio por Doña Inés de Vargas, muger de
Don Antonio de Rivera, vecino de Gina, que se llama la Concepción” (López de
Velasco1894: 464).
Clearly, what López meant was that Don Antonio de Rivera was a resident of Lima and not
“Gina” a town that never existed. Therefore, it is not “La isla de Gina” but “La isla de Lima”,
which makes more sense in the context of the original text that is describing “Callao, port of
Lima”.
327
As a confirmation of this assertion, Cieza de Leon in 1553 called this island “…la isla de
Lima” (Cieza 1922:16)”
But Romero stated, following the text of López de Velasco, that Rivera could had an
encomienda on the island that means that it should be populated because encomiendas were,
basically, a group of indigenous people granted by the Spanish crown to some personages of the
Conquest as servants (Romero 1936:4).
The fact that the island was unoccupied is confirmed by the chronicler Gutiérrez de Santa
Clara who wrote about the history of the first Peruvian Viceroy who arrived to Lima during the
Civil Wars. The Viceroy was taken prisoner and sent to inhabit the island, complaining in this
way:
…y me envían a una isla despoblada, embarcándome en esta balsilla de juncos y

cañas como veis, para que me ahogue en este mar” (Gutiérrez de Santa Clara
1904:88).
Influenced by Romero, Tello stated in a document from the 1930’s that “Quilla, Shina o
Intimaka….tiene su templo en la Isla de Shina en la Isla San Lorenzo” (Tello 1999:40), creating
more confusion because Tello thought that the “Gina” was actually Shina, the name of the Moon
God in language from the North Coast.
In the case of the huacas of Lima’s main square and the Sinchipuma lord, not only were
Colonial Period documents used but also some misunderstood archaeological information.
Although this place is in the Huatica valley, it is important to discuss it here because it is very
close to the main inlets of the channels of La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua channels.
328
The idea that a pyramidal building could be located under Lima’s main Cathedral was
proposed by authors like Adán Felipe Mejía (El Corregidor 1935:98) and Pedro Villar Córdova
(1935a:165, 1935b:12), although without presenting proofs. Carlos Romero in an interview by El
Comercio newspaper on September 14th 1938 indicated that this church was built over the
residence of Taulicusco.
Eduardo Martín-Pastor said that the Spanish city was built on a village of rammed earth walls
in the middle of the fields of “Tauli chusco” (Martín-Pastor 1939: 3-4). He thought that Pizarro
built his palace over the main huaca because he wanted it in a higher position. He cited the
version of some religious father, Domingo Angulo, who testified that during the excavations made
under the old Government Palace during its reconstruction in the 1930’s, he saw construction fills
composed of materials that are commonly found in the huacas of the valley (Martín-Pastor
1938:10). He also thought the houses located in the vicinity, like those from the Aliaga and
Riquelme families were also erected over ancient huacas, because they have mud-brick platforms
as foundations (Martín-Pastor 1938:351).
Luis Antonio Eguiguren (1945:103-106) argued that the lands where Lima’s main cathedral
was erected, belonged to a personage called Fernando Sinchipuma, who donated them to the
church, participating actively with his Indians in its construction. He was grandson of another
personage named Puma Inti who also was owner of those lands (Eguiguren 1945:104).
After this, Don Fernando Synchipuma accompanied Diego de Rojas in his conquest of
Chiriguanos, now found on the eastern side of Bolivia. During the Civil Wars he fought with the
Crown side against Diego de Alamagro and participated in the battles of Huarina, where he was
bound in an arm, Chuquinga and Pucara (Eguiguren 1945:104). In a supposed document signed
by Pizarro, it is said that he was brother of Felipe Synchipuma who was designated as ambassador
329
of the Inca royalty in order to give obeisance and allegiance to King Carlos V. Another document
said that Don Felipe got married to Doña Francisca Coran Coya who was sister of Francisco
Coran, page of Inca Huayna Capac that fought with the Spaniards during the Conquest. He was
half-brother of Leonor Yupanqui Coya, descendent from Inca Sinchi Roca, so, the ancient lords of
Lima were related with the Incas from Cusco (Eguiguren 1945:105).
Eguiguren did not mention what documents he used to write this story, which prevents any
serious evaluation of it. It is unknown if he invented the whole history, or he confused names and
historical events or had access to documents already lost or hidden somewhere.
Another reference to Fernando Sinchi Puma was given by Pablo Macera (2006) who recorded
the vicissitudes of two personages in Spain who considered them descendant from the Incas,
claiming privileges for themselves and their Indians. One of them, Juan Núñez de Vela, said that
he was descendent from a cousin of the viceroy Blasco Núñez de Vela, from Francisco Comar and
from Felipe Carlos Sinchi Puma. Francisco Comar is Francisco Corán mentioned by Eguiguren
because they participated in the same historical events. Other documents published by the
historian Pablo Macera indicate that Felipe Carlos Sinchi Puma was a sort of ambassador of the
Incas in the Court of King Carlos V. He died during a revolt in Panama when he was traveling
back to Peru. Macera, however, did not indicate if this personage was owner of the land where the
Cathedral of Lima was built and or if he was descended of some Puma Inti lord (Macera 2006).
The known Colonial Period documents confirm the existence of a Felipe Carlos Sinchi Puma,
collaborator of the Spaniards and who went to the court of King Carlos V. But that is all. If the
role of he and and that of his brother Fernando in the foundation of the City of the Kings was so
important, why does no known Colonial Period document about the foundation of the city
mention them?
330
The architect Emilio Harth-Terre (1960) took Eguiguren’s ideas without criticism, combining
them with his own observations around Lima’s Main Square. He argued that Sinchi Puma had a
large Pre-colonial settlement consisting of five pyramidal temples in the land where the City of
Kings was built. The existence of a pre-Hispanic settlement is proven, according to him, by the
fact that the Main Square is smaller than the main squares in other capitals like Mexico, because
the huacas limited the area. In addition, the new city was founded very close to the river and not
in the middle of the valley, like other cities, because Pizarro chose to raise his city over the
settlement of the indigenous lord of Lima as an expression of domain.
Harth-Terré said that the huacas around the Main Square were the Puma Inti temple, where
Lima’s Cathedral now lies, “Huaca Riquelme” in the land where the Spaniard Alonso Riquelme
built his house, the Huaca where Pizarro built his house and now is located the Government
Palace, “Huaca del Cabildo” where was built the Town Council, and “Huaca Aliaga”, where the
Spanish Aliaga family built their house.
The architect Juan Günther (1992, 2004, and 2012) was the main promoter of the idea about
the existence of a Pre-colonial monumental settlement around the Main Square. For him the place
was a crossroads from where the irrigation system of the valley was controlled. He followed
Harth-Terre’s proposal about the location of the main pyramids, with a corral for llamas in the
main square, and the huacas of Taulichusco and Aliaga as a single huaca (Günther 1992: 42,
2012:78-80).
In 2011 former president Alan Garcia announced the discovery of a supposed “temple of
Taulichusco” in the basement of the Government Palace. But, in a visit that I made to the site, I
could see that the discovered walls were Colonial Period, made with adobe bricks and masonry,
331
pretty similar to what are preserved in the basement of the Aliaga House. The Colonial Period
dating of this construction is supported by the Colonial Period documental information.
Agustin de Zárate wrote in 1555 that the first houses built by the Spaniards in Lima were built
on platforms made of adobe bricks and dirt because there was very litttle good wood for
constructions:
“Los edificios no se pueden hacer de más de un suelo, porque no hay madera en la

tierra que sufra hollarse, y a tres años se come de carcoma; y con todo esto, las casas
son muy suntuosas y de grande autoridad y muchos aposentos; los cuales edifican
haciendo las paredes de los cuartos de adobes, con cinco pies de ancho y en medio lo
hinchen de tierra todo lo necesario para subir al aposento, hasta que las ventanas que
salen á la calle queden bien altas del suelo. Las escaleras están descubiertas en los
patios, y van á dar en unos terrados que sirven de corredor ó antecuarto para entrar
desde allí á los aposentos”. (Zárate 1862:468).
Cristóbal de Molina wrote in his chronicle from 1573 that those platforms were built by the
indigenous population:
“Así mismo ordenaron que se pasase el pueblo que tenían en Jauja poblado a este
valle de Lima, donde ahora está la Ciudad de los Reyes, y aquí se pobló. Almagro
escogió el sitio de la ciudad en el año 1534, la cual no ha costado pocas ánimas en
sus edificios y fundamentos; porque a los principios hacían las casas de terraplenes
las calas y altos y las paredes y tapias tan anchas casi como de baluarte; y venían
indios de cien leguas a la redonda de la ciudad, y era la enfermería tanta y duró
tantos años que maravilla cómo quedó indio con esta invención…” (Molina 1916:
126).
332
The vestiges of those Colonial Period platforms were what was found below the Government
Palace and the Aliaga House, and not any Pre-colonial construction (see figure VII-1).
Among the more recent authors who deny that Taulichsco had his palace and temple around
Lima’s Main Square are Porras (1978), Huertas (1999:90) and Ramón (2005), due to the lack of
archaeological and documentary evidences. It should be noted that excavations in the Main
Square in 1996 failed to find any Pre-Colonial evidence (Huertas 1999: 290; Ramon 2005:104).
On the other hand, an historian who agrees with Hart-Terre’s proposition was José Antonio del
Busto (2000-2001).
It was said that the native name of La Magdalena town was Chaya-calca, Chayacalca,
Chayacala, or Chacalea. Actually the Colonial Period sources from which that information was
obtained is not known with certainty. Villar Cordova was the first one who mentioned it when he
described the archaeological sites around La Magdalena town:
“Las ruinas de la “Magdalena”.- Cuando se viaja por la “Avenida de la Magdalena,

o del Brasil”, en tranvía o en automóvil, se puede visitar las ruinas de “Chaya-
Calca”, cuyas pequeñas aldeas, fortificadas con grandes murallas, se extienden por la
Magdalena Vieja y San Miguel” (Villar 1935:177).
Probably he was describing the mounds around Huaca Hauntille. But he did not say from
where he obtained that name.
Carlos Romero in his article about Callao and in an interview for El Comercio Newspaper
(September 14th 1938) said that he found a file about the property of the polity of Chayacalca,
where the town of La Magdalena was located. In that document the lords of Huatca, Maranga and
Cantebeque, Carahualla, Chayacalca, Tilaco and Cayac with Chayahuilca are mentioned, as well
333
as the lord from Chayacalca (Romero 1936:242). But Romero did not specify what document he
studied. The reduced lords in La Magadalena were from Lima, Guala, Amancaes and Maranga,
not from Cantebeque, Tilaco, Cayac or Chayacalca who are not mentioned in any known Colonial
Period document. “Carahualla” (actually Carabayllo) was a polity located in the Chillon River
Valley and was never reduced to La Magdalena town. Finally, “Chayahuilca” (Chayavilca) was
lord of Maranga, not La Magdalena.
Chayacalca was also mentioned by Martín Pastor, although probably copying it from Romero
(Martin Pastor 1941:391). In a document written by Adán Cueto, one of Tello’s assistants, in the
1940’s, he mentioned a huaca in La Magdalena that he called “Chagya-Kalka” (Tello 1999:105),
but he did not specify why he called it in that way.
Waldemar Espinoza was the first to use the name “Chacalea” for La Magdalena, when he said
that the Viceroy Marques de Cañete founded the town of “Santa María Magdalena de Chacalea”
where the lords of Lima, Maranga, and Huatica and their people were reduced (Espinoza Soriano
1960:204). He indicated as the source of this assertion the document Expediente sobre las tierras
de la comunidad de indios de Lima, Archivo Nacional del Perú, Sección Indígena. Año 1590 from
the National General Archive (Espinoza 1960:204). Málaga said the same, and probably he copied
the information directly from Espinoza, although without citing him (Málaga 1974:150).
Cárdenas (1980:21) tried to find this document in the National General Archive, but he could
not find it. I also tried to find it in 2013, but there is no trace of it, not even in the inventories. It is
important to note that neither Rostworowski (1978) nor Charney (1990), who extensively worked
the Colonial Period indigenous societies in Lima, have said anything about that document in spite
of its apparent importance. It is unknown if this document really existed.
334
In 1972 Julio Olivera said that in a document called “Informaciones de Toledo” from 1640,
Doña Juana Cahayque, from the town of Chayacalca, declared that in this town the lord of Lima
Taurichusco, the lord of Tilaco and Cayac Juan Caxapacsi, and the lord of Huatcamarca Changran
were reduced (Olivera 1972). The “Informaciones de Toledo” is a document with interviews of
several witnesses made by the Viceroy Francisco de Toledo between 1571 and 1572 (Levillier
1935-1942: Volume 2), but there is no known other document with the name of Viceroy Pedro
Álvarez de Toledo y Leiva who served in Lima between 1639 and 1648. So, what was the
document that, supposedly, Olivera read is actually unknown. Juan Caapacsi, or Juan Caxapassi,
was lord of La Magdalena during the first half of the Seventeenth Century, not from “Tilaco” or
“Cayac”. This personage was descendent from Caxapaxa, the other lord of Lima during the
Conquest (Charney 2001:178).
Villar (1935:167-168) argued, when he described some ruins at the Aliaga Estate on the north
side of the Rimac River, about the existence of some ruins called "Tillaco" and "Kallac", names
that had been recovered by Carlos Romero. However, the sources of this information are
unknown. Finally, there was never a town called "Huatcamarca". There was a polity called Huatca
or Guatca in the Valley of Huatica, whose lord, reduced to La Magdalena, was in 1594 don Pedro
Chumbi Charnan, son of the Lord Pedro Charnan, according to a document of the Convent of
Santo Domingo in Lima (Rostworowski 1978:61-63).
Olivera said that in 1576 Don Cristóbal Huacal was lord of Chaya-Calca, or La Magdalena,
based on the document “Derecho Indígena y Encomiendas- Leg. 2 Cdno. 27, 1576. Archivos
Nacional – Sección Histórica” (Olivera 1972). As was previously discussed, the Lord of Lima in
1576 was Cristobal Guaca and not Huacal. The document cited by Olivera has this code: “AGN
335
Derecho Indígena y Encomiendas Leg 3 C. 23 Fs 150 1576”, and I could check it in the National
General Archive, but there is not any reference that La Magdalena was called Chaya-Calca.
Another mistake of Olivera was that he said that the indigenous people from La Magdalena
were known as “Chirimias” and the indigenous from Surco “Trompetas”, citing as the source of
this information the Volume VIII of Cabildos de Lima (Olivera 1972). Actually the paragraph
about this is the following:
“…en este cabildo se leyo una petiçion/ que diego de aramburu mayordomo/ de esta
ciudad presento en que dixo / que el avia pagado cantidad de pe/sos de oro de lo que
avia cobrado de/ los offiçciales Reales de la merçed que/ de las penas de cámara para
gastos de/ obras publicas como paresçia por una/memopria que presento que monto
çien/to y setenta pesos lo qual avia gasta/do en el rreparo de la puente desta/ciudad y
en la puente y alcantarilla que / se hizo junto al monesterio de la con/çepcion y en la
madera que se compro/ para las puentes de pachacama y co/ (pag 77) llique por
mandamiento de los señores /alcaldes y contador lope de pila y fran/cisco ortiza de
arbildo e pidió se le man/de dar libramiento de todo ello y asy/ mismo pidió se le
mande dar libra/miento para que rretenga en si los dosçientos pesos que se/ le deven
del salario de mayordomo del año pasado y asi mismo/ pidio que se le mande dar
libramiento por diez y nueue pesos y un to/min que ha gastad en ocho libras y media
de velas de sebo y dos/ manos de papel e quinientos alfileres para las luminarias del
rrego/zijo que se hizo quando se supo la salida de su excelencia de la/ guerra con diez
y seys pesos que pago a los indios trompetas y /chirimías de surco y la magdalena y a
los negros que tañeron los/atabales el dia de los rreyes…. (Lee and Bromley Libro
8:76).
It is not true that the indigenous of La Magdalena were called “Chirimias” or the indigenous
from Surco were “Trompetas”. The document is actually an account of the amount of money that
336
Diego de Aramburu, paid to some indigenous people from La Magdalena, Surco, and some black
people, because they played oboes, trumpets and drums respectively during a festival in Lima.
The names “Chayacalca” or “Chacalea” always appear in secondary sources from the 20th
century, and not in any known Colonial Period document. It is not in the books of “Cabildos de
Lima”, or in the “Patron de Indios de Lima” from 1613, or the documents published by Coloma
(1989) about Colonial Period La Magdalena, nor in those analyzed by Rostworowski (1978) or
Charney (2001) about the ethnohistory of Lima, or in the chronicles from Cobo or Calancha.
Therefore, it is a name that should not be taken seriously.
7.11 Conclusions:
The valleys of Lima (Rimac) and Pachacamac (Lurín) were considered a unit, called the
Province of Ychsma or Province of Pachacamac during the Early Colonial Period. This territory
was subject to the Inca Empire. There is however no consensus which of the Incas conquered the
Peruvian Central Coast. The chronicles named Yahuar Huacac (seventh Inca), Pachacútec (ninth
Inca) and Tupac Inca Yupanqui (tenth Inca). The Colonial Period information indicates that
during the reign of Guayna Capac (eleventh Inca) the area was already under the administration of
the Empire.
The Valley of Lima was densely populated, with numerous settlements and with their own
lands and divinities. It was irrigated by channels whose age was greater than the arrival of the
Spaniards. The Valley was very fruitful, full of agricultural fields and forests of fruit trees at the
time of the conquest.
At least three polities existed in the area of investigation at the arrival of the Spaniards:
Maranga, Lima and Callao. Lima was located mainly in the Huatica Channel Valley, where the
337
main lord of Lima had lands in Chuntay (now San Sebastian Church), and the Main Square, and
Limatambo that was the main settlement situated between the Hutica and the Surco channel
valleys. Also, he had Pacan and Luruguayco, Cataye and Quilán on the north side of the Rimac
River, in the area irrigated by the Piedra Liza Channel. In La Magdalena Channel Valley he was
owner of the land where the town of La Magdalena was founded. The name of the polity was
taken from the god named Lima (Quechua for “speaker”) whose temple was located close to the
Santa Ana Church, in the Huatica Channel Valley or in Limatambo.
Maranga was located in the Valley of Maranga and extended its territory towards the sea. The
main settlement of the polity in the 16th century seemed to be a tambo called Mayacatama,
because the visit from 1559 was made there. Its exact location is unknown, although it could be
the southern part of the Maranga Group. In the Seventeenth Century Colonial Period documents
also mentioned an "old town of Maranga" whose exact location is unknown.
Callao was located where the city and port of Callao are located now. The original name of
this polity is currently unknown because "Callao" is Castilian and makes reference to the
numerous pebbles on the beaches of the port. The existence of this polity is demonstrated by the
list of Colonial Period lords who resided there, and who traced their lineages even before the
arrival of the Spaniards. Early Colonial Period information indicates the existence of a tambo and
the ancient walls that were in the area that is now the port could be the ruins of that Pre-colonial
settlement.
There was a hierarchy of lords in the Valley, although the information is too scarce to
determine exactly how it was organized. But it is possible to propose a four-tier model of the
political organization at the end of the Late Horizon Period (Chart 7-1). Under the Inca was the
Lord of Pachacamac, Llaxaguayla, who had control over the lords of the valleys of the Rimac and
338
Lurin rivers, including the polities of Lima, Callao and Maranga. The polity of Lima could be
divided into two parts, one under the control of Taulichusco and the other under his cousin
Caxapaxa. Something similar might occur with Maranga, and this situation could explain the fact
that two main lords were mentioned in the earliest documents: Chayavilca and Marcatanta, and in
Callao because two surnames of main lords are also given: Manchipula and Guacho or Guaicho.
Under each of those lords there were minor lords. Three of those were registered for Maranga:
Cimalo, Yana Chuqui and Chatana.
This is based on the declarations of the Lord of Pachacamac, Llaxaguayla, who pointed out
that the Lord of Lima was subject to him. Other witnesses testified that Taulichusco was the
servant of Mama Vilo, wife of Huayna Capac Inca and Caxapaxa servant of Huayna Capac.
Although the Lord of Pachacamac did not say if the lords of Callao and Maranga were subject to
him, since the valleys of the Rímac and Lurín rivers were considered a unit, it is probable that
they were also his subjects.
The recovered information, especially of the chroniclers of the Seventeenth Century such as
Bernabé Cobo, indicates that there was also a hierarchy of settlements, with major sites and
smaller settlements dependent on these distributed through the valley. However, there is little
known information about this hierarchy of settlements.
The documentation about wills land trials indicates that the polities were divided into
numerous pieces of land, each one with its own name. However, the exact location of each of
them is difficult to determine due to the vagueness of the references in the documents. Also, in the
valley of Lima, there were lands that belonged directly to the Inca or the Sun God.
The Colonial Period documents indicate that the polity of Lima had lands on the northern
margin of the Rímac River, and also in the Huatica and La Magdalena channel valleys. The polity
339
of Huatca had lands in the Huatica channel valley but also in the La Magdalena valley. The
Maranga polity had lands in the valley of the Maranga Channel Valley and Callao, and the polity
of Callao had its lands close to the port. Although there is still much to investigate about this
situation, this could reflect a sort of scattered territoriality for the polities, in other words, each
polity did not have a specific territory, but several lands distributed in different places of the
Rimac River Valley (Table 7-1, Map 7-1).
340
Type Lima Maranga Callao
Mayacatama
Towns Limatambo
Pampaguayca Piti-piti
Pueblo Viejo de Maranga
Quilcum
Chuntay Pichiuco
Luruguayco Alcacay
Cataye Tambuna
Chuyquibayca Chilaguat
Lands Chuica
Cuzique Guayamolca
Quilán Chilcaguayca
Macate Vichoguayca
Pacán Casamarca
Uachicolli Llasacama
Ualla Cuyllatita
Yatimanil Cayarico
Marringuasi Collata
Calguac Mato
Cataq
Colcán
Guayaca
Chacaca
Casamalca
Capaguati
Huacas Ñancaxma - -
Table 7-1: Indigenous names of tows, lands, and of huacas mentioned in Colonial Period
documents about the polities of Lima, Maranga, and Callao.
341
Chart 7-1.
Hierarchy in Lima, Maranga and Callao at the end of the Late Horizon Period.
Inca Guayna Colla

Capac Mama Vilo
Llaxaguayla
Chayavilca Marcatanta Caxapaxa Taulichusco Manchipula Guacho
Yana Chuqui Cimalo Chatana
Cuzco Pachacamac Maranga Lima Callao
342
N
Rimac River
La Legua
Channel
La
Magdalena
Maranga Channel
Channel
l
Pacific
ne
San Lorenzo
n
el
a
Su
Island
nn a
Ocean
Ch rco
a
Hu
Ch atic
0 2 km
Callao Maranga Lima Huatca
Map 7- 1.Location of the lands of Callao, Maranga, Lima and Huatca polities at the beginning of the Colonial Period
343
CHAPTER 8
Reconstruction of the Occupation Sequence and Settlement Pattern
8.1 The Preceramic Period:
Is the period of time in the Central Andes between the arrival of the first people during the
Late Pleistocene and the introduction of pottery that is dated between 2000 and 1800 Cal BC. No
evidence of this period has been found in the area of investigation; however, this does not
necessarily imply that people were absent in this area during this period. But for sure, there were
not large monumental Late Preceramic settlements in the area of investigation, such as those of
the North-Central and North coasts. Such monumental sites in general seem not to have existed
south of the Rímac River.
8.2 The Ancon occupation:
According to some bibliographic references (Ravines 1985) sites with Ancon style pottery in
the area of investigation are the mounds LM-68 (Huaca Juan XXIII), in the La Magdalena
Channel Valley; M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa), M-64 (Huaca Corpus II), M-162 (“Huaca
Pacific Fair”), and the midden deposit M-168 (Bellavista) in the Maranga Channel Valley. The
analysis of the pottery collection of M-7 confirmed the presence of the Ancon style in this site. In
La Legua Channel Valley, an Ancon sherd was found in LL-64 (Huaca 9), although in a
superficial layer with no direct relation with the Late Lima constructions in the site.
The most common type of site during this period in the area of investigation is the small
mound with a length between 3 and 7 m and about 2 m high. Unfortunately very little
archaeological information is available from these sites. The investigations in those sites have
344
never been published, and even reports like the one of Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa have
disappeared, although there are some references in secondary publications (Shady 1982b; Ravines
1985).
These mounds are distributed along the Maranga and the La Magdalena channels. Therefore it
could be possible to conclude that those channels existed during the Ancon occupation in the area
of investigation. Although there is no information about Ancon sites in the La Legua Channel
Valley, it is possible that it also existed at that time, considering that a sherd of Ancon style was
found in LL-64 (Huaca 9). Given the lack of natural springs in the area, with the exception of
Puquios del Chivato, located very close to the Rimac River, the only way in which those sites
could have immediate access to fresh water was through irrigation systems from the Rimac River.
Bellavista is located at 3.8 km, Pacific Fair at 4.7 km, Corpus II at 3 km, and Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa at 2.6 km, from the Rimac River. But for the moment, it is impossible to know with
certainty, if the Maranga and the La Legua channels existed during that time or there were others
that were covered by silt during the irrigation works in later periods.
Shady (1982b: Lam. 1) published a sketch map of the structures discovered in M-162 (Huaca
Pacific Fair) during the 1961 rescue work in the site. Although it is not a detailed map, it is
possible to see some rectangular enclosures and narrow passageways. The orientation of the walls
is about 60° NE, which is similar to the orientation of channels in this part of the valley, visible in
the 1944 aerial picture, which is between 56° and 62° NE. This would imply that the organization
of the space in the sites from these early periods was following the alignment of those irrigation
channels or others located stratigraphically below them. Since the channels are oriented according
to the relief of the terrain, so the water can flow by gravity, it is possible to conclude that the
channels were first made then, or at the same time as the Ancon buildings.
345
As far as is known, the constructions associated with Ancon pottery style were made using
small irregular or spherical mud bricks, settled with mud mortar in order to build walls whose
external sides were plastered with mud. Those mud bricks still can be seen on the Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa surface and in the pictures published by Shady (1982b: Lam. 3) from the rescue
project in Huaca Pacific Fair. Other small mounds visible in the 1943 and 1944 aerial pictures,
distributed in the three artificial valleys, could also be from this time. Unfortunately, those sites
were destroyed and their associations are unknown.
The most important architectonic type of the Initial and Early Horizon periods is the large
pyramidal U-shaped building, commonly known as "Temple in U" (Williams 1980) that is
distributed between the Huaura and Lurin river valleys. However there are no U-shaped buildings
in the La Legua, La Magdalena and Maranga channel valleys. Taking as reference Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa, the closest U-shaped buildings are: “San Isidro Golf” 4.4 Km to the SE in the Huatica
Valley Channel, “Las Salinas” 12 km to the East in the Surco Channel Valley, “La Florida” about
5.2 km NE and Garagay 6.5 km to the NW, the latter two both located on the northern side of the
Rimac River Valley.
It is impossible to know if the Ancon sites located in the area of investigation were politically
or religiously linked to some of the U-Shaped buildings previously mentioned. The San Isidro
Golf site is the best candidate because it is the closest. But due to its destruction and the absence
of archaeological investigations in this site, it is hard to say if this site was coeval and shared
cultural identity with the sites in the area of investigation.
As is demonstrated in appendixes B and C, the Ancon pottery from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
and Huaca Pacific Fair is linked to the phases VI and VII of the Ancon style sequence, when the
Janabarriu style began to expand, apparently from Chavin de Huantar in the Northern Highlands.
346
It is important to remember that Janabarriu pottery was not found in the collections from either
site. However, due to the presence of certain incised designs and the use of red slip on some
neckless pots from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and sherds from Huaca Pacific Fair with painted and
incised decoration, it is possible to argue that this pottery was associated with these phases of the
Ancon style, taking into account that the Janabarriu decorative elements arrived during phase
Ancon V, but became common during phase Ancon VIII (Rosas 1970). Janabarriu pottery was
found in Huaca Vázquez (Mendoza 1974) in the Surco Valley Channel, about 9 km SE from
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, in the U-shaped Garagay on the northern margin of the Rímac River
(Ravines et al. 1982), and in the hills situated south of the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970).
The Early Horizon Period is associated with the Chavin expansion through Peru. Burger
(1981:599) argued, based on radiocarbon dates that the U-shaped temples and the Ancon pottery
from the Central Coast were previous to the Chavin expansion associated with the phase that he
called Janabarriu that lasted from 390 to 200 BC. Rick et al. (2009) have questioned this idea,
arguing that Janabarriu or “Janabarroid”, as they prefer to call it, belongs to the epoch of the final
expansion of the temple at Chavin de Huantar and then its abandonment between 800 and 500/400
cal BC. He based his assertions on a reevaluation of Burger’s radiocarbon dates, and new ones
from Chavin and other sites with this pottery.
Given this discrepancy, it is necessary to analyze the radiocarbon dates from the Central Coast
for the Initial and Early Horizon periods during which transition the Ancon sites in the area of
investigation seem to belong.
Unfortunately, no radiocarbon dates are available from Huaca Vásquez. There are four dates
from Garagay (Ravines et al. 1982:135) situated between 1747 and 598 cal BC. This means that
347
Garagay is much earlier than Janabarriu, and that only in the final stages of its construction
sequence this pottery was used in the site.
In Ancon Bay, something similar occurred. The ten radiocarbon dates that Burger (1981:594)
presented as “Garagay influence”, are in the range between 2129 and 403 cal BC (Table 8-1 and
Chart 8-1). Ancon is also a site with a long sequence of occupation that only at the end received
the Janabarriu influence. Unfortunately, Burger has never published an analysis of the pottery that
he called “Garagay influence” from Ancon. There is a design on a jar from Ancon of a face with
open mouth and two big fangs that is similar to some friezes discovered at Garagay (Burger 1992:
fig. 46). Probably he was referring to that. Designs of this type resemble those known as
“Dragonian” style from Chavin de Huantar (Lumbreras 1993:138-167, laminas 20-47). The few
examples of this kind of iconography discovered by Rosas in Ancon are in the phases V, VI, and
VII (Rosas 1970: Lam. XVI: 1) when the Janabarriu influences had already arrived to Ancon.
There are three dates from La Florida (Patterson 1985, Burger and Salazar 2008:97; Fuentes
2009:216) that once calibrated are in the range from 2458 to 1619 Cal BC. This seems to indicate
that La Florida had much older occupations than those proposed for Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and
Huaca Pacific Fair, although it is important to take into consideration that there are only three
dates for a very long and complex construction sequence of this building (Fuentes 2012).
The U-shaped buildings in the valley of the Lurin River seem to have been occupied long
before the Janabarriu expansion. Seventeen radiocarbon dates taken from several construction
phases in the site Mina Perdida (Burger and Salazar 2008:99) put it between 3702 and 809 cal
BC. Cardal has 26 dates (Burger 1992:232) that once calibrated are between 3313 and 797 cal
BC, and, although basically coeval, seem to be a little more recent than Mina Perdida. In
Manchay Bajo a single date from the last construction phases (Burger and Salazar 2008:97) lies
348
between 1412 and 1056. The analysis of the pottery collections of those sites has never been
published, and whether there is Janabarriu style pottery in those sites or not is unknown.
Another site useful for comparisons is Pampa Chica, which has two small platforms situated
on top of a hill in the Lurin River Valley. The site is considered to date from the Early Horizon
Period based on radiocarbon dates and the associated pottery that resembles in some manner
Janabarriu pottery (Dulanto 2009). There are six dates associated with the two earliest
construction phases in the site (phases 1A and 1B) between 901 and 430 cal BC. A seventh date
associated with Phase 1B is very late, between 366 and 105 cal BC and seems to be more related
with Phase 2 in the site that is estimated to date to the beginnings of the Early Intermediate Period
(Dulanto 2009:390-391) (Table 8-1 and Chart 8-2).
Thus, the available radiocarbon dates for the Central Coast do not contradict the idea of Rick et
al. (2009) that Janabarriu is dated between 800 and 400 Cal BC. The U-shaped buildings were a
local expression of long standing on the Central Coast, which emerged in the Initial Period and
were abandoned before the expansion of Janabarriu, with the exception of some, such as Garagay
that seems to have survived a little longer, incorporating Janabarriu pottery in its last stages of
occupation. In any case, the pottery found in Huaca Pacific Fair and Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
seems to be situated in the moment immediately after the abandonment of the majority of the U-
shaped buildings and the beginning of the arrival of the Janabarriu pottery influence to the Central
Coast.
Richard Burger stated that in the Central Coast societies of the Initial and Early Horizon
periods the mobilization of a large-scale labor force, necessary for the construction of large
pyramidal structures, was made possible by the existence of a common ideology, along with
religious and social sanctions, and not by the existence of coercive authorities. The large buildings
349
would have been made for communal spiritual and religious needs and not to immortalize a
specific individual or family (Burger 1992:54). Based on burials from Ancon and from the U-
shaped building at Cardal from the Valley of Lurin River, Burger argued for the existence of
social differences that were not associated with a highly stratified society because the funerary
offerings were very simple (Burger 2008:20-22). The differences that Burger observed among the
contemporary ceramic collections of the Central Coast, as well as in the construction design and
orientation of the large U-shaped centers would be indicators of local independence and diversity
during the Initial Period (Burger 1992:75; Burger and Salazar 2008:89).
Silva emphasized more the similarities rather than the differences in pottery from different
sites, and believed that there was a common cultural identity among the settlements of the Rimac
River Valley. He pointed out that each of the great U-shaped buildings had its own population
living in the surroundings in different settlements. Although they were relatively autonomous,
they also maintained links. He also said that there had to have been a U-shaped building close to
the sea between San Miguel and Bellavista, which could exercise control over various settlements
of the area like Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, Bellavista and Corpus II (Silva and García 1997:222-
223).
However, as was demonstrated in this research, there was no U-shaped building in the valleys
of La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua channels. The only solution to this problem could be
that the settlements in the area of investigation were dependent on the nearest U-shaped building,
which was San Isidro Golf located in the Valley of Huatica, if it survived through the Janabarriu
expansion like Garagay. But this is something that, unfortunately, will be impossible to know.
Huaca Vazquez, located in the Surco Channel Valley, was a small mound no different from the
mounds from the Early Horizon Period in the area of investigation. If there were an occupation
350
more directly associated with Janabarriu in the valleys of La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua,
it is likely to have been at one of those small mounds visible in the aerial pictures, or others that
could have been covered by later Lima or Ychsma architectonic reconstructions. In the case of
Huaca Vasquez, the investigations have concluded that it was a village with its inhabitants
dedicated to agriculture (Mendoza 1974). Since the appearance of that site in the 1944 aerial
photo is not very different in shape and size to mounds such as Huaca Corpus II or Huaca Pacific
Fair, and the type of architecture of Huaca Vasquez seems very similar to that found in the Huaca
Pacific Fair, it is possible to assume that mounds of this phase found in the research area have the
same characteristics and therefore should be interpreted as rural settlements of people engaged in
agriculture and the exploitation of marine resources.
Burger and Salazar have emphasized the rural, and not urban, characteristics of the settlements
from that time in the Central Coast in their model applied to the Lurín River Valley. Each political
unit could have been built around an irrigation channel with scattered rural settlements and a U-
shaped temple with its inhabitants dedicated to the construction and maintenance of the channels.
In their model, frictions between people, due to population growth, caused division. The new
group became a new polity that built a new irrigation channel and a new U-shaped temple. The
pattern would have been more heterarchical than hierarchical, since none of the U-shaped temples
exercised dominion over the others (Burger and Salazar 2008).
In the Rimac River Valley, this model does not seem to work at all. On the northern side of the
river, there was one for the Huachipa Channel (Huaca San Antonio), one U-shaped building for
the Lurigancho Channel (Azcarrunz), three for the Piedra Liza Channel (La Florida, Pampa de
Cueva, and Garagay) and none for the Bocanegra Channel. On the South side of the Valley there
was one for the Surco Channel (La Salina), one for the Huatica Channel (San Isidro Golf) but
351
none for the La Magdalena, Maranga, La Legua, and Ate channels. Perhaps in the Rimac U-
shaped buildings could be the main settlement of polities that distributed their territories in
specific sections of the valley irrigated by one or more channels, instead of one channel as the
Burger and Salazar model predicts. When the occupation sequences of the still existing U-shaped
buildings are associated with radiocarbon dates, we will know if those temples were coeval or not.
It is possible that during that time in the Rimac River Valley there were several polities with
small settlements scattered from the river to the shoreline, in the process of developing irrigation
channels and irrigation agriculture. The model would consist of a main settlement, the U-shaped
building, followed by a group of rural settlements in the area under its control. Although this
model resembles the settlement pattern of a simple chiefdom, the minimal social differentiation in
burials of the Central Coast at this time suggests tribal societies, in other words, unstratified
societies. In any case, the evidence rules out the existence of state or despotic societies that had
organized the society of that time for the construction and maintenance of the hydraulic systems
and large pyramidal buildings.
8.3 The Topara Occupation:
Vessels of this style have appeared in Ventanilla, between the Rímac and Chillón rivers (Silva
1996), Huayco and Pinazo phases in Huachipa (Palacios 1988), and Tablada of Lurín (Cárdenas
1999; Makowski 2009), Villa el Salvador (Stothert 1980) and El Panel (Paredes 1986) in the
deserted area between the valleys of the Rímac and Lurín rivers.
In the area of investigation some vessels of this style were found only near Huaca La Palma
(M-140), but without reports about their exact provenance and associations. They seem to be
352
burial offerings. Also, in the Huacas of Pando fragments of double spout and bridge bottles were
found that seem to be related to the Topara style (Ramos 1974-1975: Lam. 2 type 24).
Jijón recorded a first construction phase in Huaca Middendorf (LL-74) that had architecture
composed of mud-brick, which he called "tooth-shaped". The chronological position and cultural
association of this construction phase is not clear. Jijón’s excavation is completely covered, and it
is impossible, for the moment, to determine the characteristics of this architecture. "Tooth-
shaped" mud bricks have appeared in Huaca Huallamarca, in the valley of Huatica Channel, a
building from the beginnings of the Early Intermediate Period associated with the Pinazo Phase
(Valladolid 1992; Dolorier and Casas 2008:24). It is tempting to relate those ancient constructions
of Huaca Middendorf with the pyramidal buildings of the beginning of the Early Intermediate
Period in the Rimac River Valley.
One fact that calls into question the chronological and cultural links between the “tooth-
shaped” mud brick building in Huaca Middendorf with Huaca Huallamarca, is that fragments of
Topara pottery have never been found in subsequent architectural reconstructions in Huaca
Middendorf or the Huaca Aramburu that usually removed the previous occupation for the
construction fills. For that reason, it is impossible at the moment to infer anything until the
profiles of Jijón’s excavations can be cleaned and new excavations can be made in the site.
There are three radiocarbon dates associated with burials in Tablada de Lurin with Topara-like
pottery, although with a very high error margin (Makowski 2009:225). Those dates are between
210 and 1200 cal AD although the three overlap between 222 and 761 cal AD (Table 8-1 and
Chart 8-3).
353
In the Jauranga site, located in the Palpa River Valley on the South Coast, Topara pottery,
similar to that from Huaca La Palma, was found in association with Ocucaje 8, that along with
Ocucaje 9 was dated between 370 and 200 Cal BC (Reindell and Isla 2006:56). It has been argued
that the last phases of the Topara sequence were contemporary with the two first phases of the
Nasca style (Massey 1986; Proulx 2008:569; Silverman 2009:480). In the case of the Nasca and
Palpa valleys, the end of the phase Nasca 3 has been dated around 325 Cal AD (Hecht 2009;
Unkel and Kromer 2009). That could indicate that the Topara style pottery embraces several
phases after Janabarriu from 400 Cal BC to at least 300 Cal AD. For the moment it is impossible
to know at what moment of this long period of 900 years the Topara collection from Huaca La
Palma is situated (Table 8-1 and Chart 8-3).
The scarce evidence about this time of occupation in the area of investigation severely limits
what can be said about the social and territorial organizations during this time. Based on an
analysis of the type of offerings in the Tablada de Lurin cemetery and settlement pattern in the
Lurin valley, Makoswski believes that during this time the society was organized into some kind
of complex chiefdom, capable of controlling the populations of the valley and the shoreline
(Makowski 2002:115-116; 2009:235). In the Valley of the Rímac River the only example of
monumental architecture is Huaca Huallamarca and two small platforms in Cerro Ventana in
Huachipa, while other settlements in the ravines of Lurigancho and Huachipa are village-type. In
the Chillon River Valley there is no monumental architecture associated with Topara ceramics,
although it has been argued that there were walled fortified settlements in the hills and village
communities of fishermen along the coastline during this time (MacNeish et al. 1975:48).
354
How were the societies of the South Coast linked with those in the Central Coast? Does the
similarity in pottery from both zones imply cultural contact or political control in some way?
There is not enough evidence to solve those questions.
8.4 The Lima occupation:
Early Lima (phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Patterson sequence) has two radiocarbon dates between
373 and 1019 cal AD, overlapping between 373 and 839 cal AD. Taking into consideration that
there is a date from Tablada de Lurin that has as its more recent extreme 365 cal AD, and a date
associated with Lima phase 1 pottery that has as its earliest extreme 380 cal AD, then Early Lima
could have emerged between 300 and 350 cal AD, later than is usually assumed, which is between
150 and 200 cal AD, and should be coeval with the late part of the Topara tradition (Table 8-1 and
Chart 8-3).
Middle Lima (phases 4, 5, and 6 in the Patterson sequence) has five dates between 79 and 770
cal AD. Taking into consideration the dates associated with Early Lima, Middle Lima could start
around 550 cal AD. Late Lima (Lima phases 7, 8, and 9) has three dates between 767 and 1206
cal AD, overlapping between 767 and 882 cal AD. Tentatively, the beginning of Late Lima could
be between 750 and 800 cal AD, and seems to lasted for a very short time, probably a little more
than 100 years (Table 8-1 and Chart 8-3).
No pottery specimens from the three earliest phases of the Lima sequence of nine phases have
been found in the collections of the area of investigation or in what has been published, something
that is common for the whole Rimac River Valley (Patterson 1966:104).
In the Lurin River Valley, Lima occupations are from phase Lima 3 (Patterson 1966: Table 3),
although Earle (1972:471) argued for the existence of occupations associated with the whole
355
sequence, even Early and Late Miramar pottery from the beginnings of the Early Intermediate
Period. But, because he did not publish a pottery study of those collections, not even drawings or
pictures, it is impossible to corroborate those claims.
In the Chancay River Valley, the most ancient phase detected so far is Lima 2, while in the
Bay of Ancon and the Chillon River Valley is Lima 1 (Patterson 1966: Table 3). It seems that the
Lima style is originally from the Ancon-Chillon area and intrusive in the valleys of the rivers
Chancay, Rimac and Lurin. The finding of vessels with three-color decoration in the cemeteries of
Villa el Salvador has led some scholars to argue that this pottery evolved into Early Lima
(Makowski 2002:101). But, taking into consideration the calibrated radiocarbon dates it is more
probable that the pottery from Tablada de Lurin Cemetery was coeval with Early Lima pottery
style and both traditions were sharing some features like the use of three colors in their vessels as
decoration. There is also the problem of the absence of the first two phases of the Lima sequence
in the Lurin River valley.
Taking into consideration that the Topara style lasted until Epoch 2 of the Early Intermediate
Period and that phase Lima 4 emerged during the second half of Epoch 6 of the Early
Intermediate Period, why is there no evidence of epochs 3, 4, 5 and part of 6 of the Early
Intermediate Period in the area of investigation and in the Rimac River Valley in general?
This problem could be explained by the following possibilities:
1) There was an Early Lima occupation in the area but it was not very significant and was covered
by the subsequent occupations. Buildings from this period might also be some of the mounds that
could be seen in the aerial pictures but were destroyed before any archaeological investigation
could be done there. However, the fact that there is no pottery of the first phases of the Lima
356
sequence in the architectonic fills of the buildings that have been excavated so far makes this
possibility very unlikely.
2) Depopulation of the area, which would mean a gap in the occupation of the Rimac River
Valley in general during the Early Lima phase. This possibility is however unlikely since the area
was occupied during the Early Horizon Period and massively inhabited from the second half of
Epoch 6 of the Early Intermediate Period. Also, it is hard to accept a widespread abandonment of
rich agriculture lands with irrigation systems already operating.
3) Another possibility is that the sequence of Patterson should be adjusted much better and that
some types that are considered to be from Lima phase 4 onward may actually correspond to the
early stages of the Lima style, at least in the Valley of the Rímac River.
4) Another alternative is that the Topara style continued in the Rímac River Valley, while in the
Chillon Valley the first three phases of the Lima style existed. Topara finally was replaced by the
Lima tradition coming from the North. This situation seems to be in accord with the radiocarbon
dates (Table 8-1 and Chart 8-3).
Once the Lima tradition was established in the Rimac valley, significant changes occurred in
the settlement pattern in the area of investigation. First, there was a massive occupation in the
zone with the construction of huge pyramidal buildings, and other smaller structures. The huacas
Middendorf (LL-74), Aramburu (LL-61) and Concha (LL-58) have construction phases from this
time, characterized by the use of small cubic mud-bricks that were exposed during the excavations
in Huaca Aramburu and big holes opened in the summit of Huaca Concha during the remodeling
of the Stadium of San Marcos University in 1993. The associated pottery, as was demonstrated
with the analysis of the collection from the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu, is Middle Lima,
between Patterson’s phases 4 and 6. Architecture of this type is also in Huaca Potosi Alto (M-80),
357
in the interior of Huaca 43 in the Park of the Legends Zoo, inside Huaca 31 (M-84) and around
Huaca 20 (M-82). It was also found in Makatampu Huaca B, as can be seen in the pictures taken
during the rescue work from 1945. Middle Lima pottery also appeared in the collection of Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa, but in small quantities, probably associated with the Lima architecture found
in the site (Ravines 1985:50). Until now, there is no evidence of Lima buildings in the valley of
La Magdalena Channel.
In LL-61 (Huaca Middendorf) human burials were found disposed in extended position over
stretchers, wrapped with textiles, and associated with Middle and Late Lima pottery, fine slings,
rag dolls, crosses made with sticks and textiles, and even trophy heads (Jijón 1949, Kroeber
1954). Although those personages must have been very important in the Lima society of that time,
like other burials found in other sites as Bajada Balta (Kroeber 1954) and Pucllana (Flores 2005;
Barreto 2012) in Rímac River Valley, Huaca Cerro Culebras in the Chillón River Valley (Falcón
and Amador 1997) and in Playa Grande south of the Ancon Bay (Stumer 1953; Falcón 2004),
they contrast dramatically with the Moche burials of the same time on the North Coast that have
fine pottery vessels, highly elaborate handicrafts made with gold, silver, cooper and marine shells
imported from tropical seas (Alva and Donnan 1993; Alva 2000; Donnan 2007). This could mean
that there was not a strong social differentiation in the Lima society during the Early Intermediate
Period.
Little can be said about the activities that may have occurred in the Lima pyramids of this
period, because it is difficult to study this architecture due to the massive architectonic
reconstructions that occurred during the Late Lima and Wari occupation of the sites that covered
the previous construction phases. In Huaca Aramburu there is evidence of huge platforms with
walls made of small cubic mud bricks in technique D and rammed earth walls with small
358
enclosures and narrow corridors. The floors were found clean, and the architectonic fills that
covered this architecture are middle Lima pottery and domestic garbage. In Huaca Concha, in the
cuts made during the reconstruction of the Stadium in 1993, there are also cubic mud brick
platforms and wide enclosures with the walls painted in yellow and mud floors.
In Huaca Potosi Alto (M-80) the architecture made of mud-bricks Type D includes corridors
and enclosures, but little is known about the configuration of the site due to the lack of
publications of the results of the excavations made and the bad conservation of the exposed
architecture. Apparently, there were also some enclosures connected by long and narrow
passageways. The pictures of the rescue work in Makatampu also show massive platforms and
enclosures with small cubic mud bricks in technique D, something that also was found at Huaca
Middendorf based on the profiles and descriptions published by Jijón (1949). The excavations
made in other sites with similar architecture like Huaca Pucllana have not revealed more details
because the exposed areas with this architecture are very small due to the new architecture the
covered the previous one during the following periods of occupation.
The configuration of the Middle Lima settlement in Maranga was defined by three main
pyramids oriented from SW to NE following the same orientation of the irrigation channels that is
around 25° NE. Towards the south there are several mounds of lesser dimensions with the same
orientation. Considering the northern extreme of Huaca Concha (LL-59) and Huaca 43 (M-93),
both with architectonic evidences of this period, the settlement was 1.4 km long N-S, and from
Huaca Aramburu (LL-62) to Huaca Potosi Alto (M-80) 0.9 km E-W. This comprises an
approximate area of 1.26 km² for the Middle Lima settlement in Maranga.
359
The second site in extension is Makatampu. The orientation of the buildings in this site is
25° NE, the same as Maranga and as the irrigation channels in the area. Makatampu has smaller
dimensions compared with Maranga: 235 m N-S and 490 m W-E, with a maximum area of 0.12
km². In Makatampu there are no buildings as big as in Maranga. For instance, LL-65 from
Makatampu is 447 m² and has some morphological resemblance with LL-75 (Huaca Middendorf)
of Maranga, which is 934 m², more than double the area. There are only two Middle Lima
buildings in Makatampu, while there are at least ten of those buildings in Maranga.
The excavations carried out in the surroundings of M-82 (Huaca 20) have revealed the
existence of occupations of domestic characteristics, and probably workshops for the production
of ceramics, consisting of simple structures made with boulders and small cubic mud bricks in
technic D. The associated pottery corresponds to the middle stages of the Lima style (Mac Kay
and Santa Cruz 2000:587).
Given that the architecture in both sites seems to be ceremonial and that there is no evidence of
massive populations living in the settlements, and the absence of broad areas dedicated to the
production of goods, except for one sector around Huaca 20, it is unlikely that sites of the time as
Maranga and Makatampu were urban settlements. However, there is a settlement hierarchy during
this time, unlike the Ancon occupation. There were at least three levels: Maranga the largest in
area with the greatest number of buildings, followed by Makatampu or other sites in the Rimac
River Valley like Pucllana, and finally much smaller settlements like the Lima occupation in
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
During end of the Early Intermediate Period and the Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon Period,
there were several large architectonic reconstructions in Maranga Associated with Late Lima
360
pottery (Phases 7, 8 and 9 in the Patterson sequence), Nieveria pottery style, and architecture with
cuboid small mud bricks in technique C.
Architecture and pottery of this type appeared in LL-61 (Huaca Aramburu), LL-75 (Huaca
Middendorf) and LL-58 (Huaca Concha). This pottery can be seen in the cuts in LL-71 (Huaca
22) and they constitute the oldest occupations detected in LL-56 (Huaca 11) and LL-64 (Huaca 9)
in the Campus of San Marcos University.
The architectural type of this phase is best known from the excavations that have been made in
several monuments of this time especially in LL-61 (Huaca Aramburu). Large platforms made of
cuboid mud bricks in technique C have been found covering Middle Lima architectonic phases.
There are five superimposed platforms in Huaca Aramburu, which raise the volume of the
building towards the South. Platform 1 is a large enclosure with tree trunks inside planted as
columns. Platform 2 has a core made of small mud bricks in technique C, but it has been
intensively remodeled during Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period during the Wari occupation
of the site. Platform 3 is another wide-open enclosure with many trunks planted inside, perhaps to
support a roof, and surrounded by walls with an access on the north side with a long bench with a
small ramp for access. Platform 4 is composed of a set of enclosures with narrow access and
passages that were used for keeping large vessels, probably for storage of maize beer.
The lack of extensive excavations in Platform 5 makes it impossible to establish the type of
architecture, although some exposed cuts show the presence of massive walls of cuboid, small
mud bricks in technique C. In Platform 6 the excavations carried out in 1999 and 2000, exposed a
core of walls with mud bricks in technique C. There is less information available for platforms 7,
361
located to the West, and 8 to the South, the latter destroyed during the construction of Venezuela
Avenue and the Naval Hospital.
Late Lima architecture in Huaca Aramburu, seems to be destined for ritual activities involving
the concentration of groups of persons in the large courtyards, where food and alcoholic
beverages were consumed. Although more excavations are necessary, so far, there is no evidence
that the enclosures in the pyramid were workshops for the production of artifacts or served as
residence for elites, or deposits, aside from the vessels for keeping maize beer for its consumption
in the site.
It seems that the great pyramids kept their general morphology, only growing upward and to
the sides due to new construction phases. Apparently the most important change in the settlement
was the increase in the number of buildings, especially eastward with the construction of LL-57
(Huaca 11), LL.63 (Huaca 7), LL-65 (Huaca 9) from at least ten in Middle Lima times to at least
twenty-five during the Late Lima occupation.
Around Huaca 20 (M-82) and Huaca 31 (M-84), the excavations identified several human
burials associated with Late Lima and Nieveria pottery put along the irrigation channels.
The lack of a wide sample of Lima burials is an impediment to establishing a good typology of
them, and if there was a stratification that could indicate whether great social differentiation
existed during this time. However, apparently, as far as is known, nothing comparable to
hierarchies of the coeval Moche society from the North Coast existed. Late Lima burials
discovered at Huaca Pucllana (Flores 2005; Barreto 2012:110-113) and in the cemetery Nieveria
(Gayton 1925) are very similar to Late Lima burials in Huaca 20. Kaulicke (2000:341) points out
that it is possible to find Lima elite residences and sumptuous funerary contexts comparable to
362
those from the North or South Coast. However, with all the archaeological research that has been
carried out in Lima sites, and massive destruction of Lima archaeological sites of the Central
Coast due to looting and modern urban expansion, no sumptuous Lima burials have ever been
reported.
The fact that in the large Middle and Late Lima pyramids there is no evidence of workshops,
areas for elite residence or depots, with the exception of the large pottery vessels for storing maize
beer, coupled with the lack of evidence of strong social differentiation and the absence of
elements that allow one to argue for the existence of a concentration of urban population within
and in the vicinity of the great pyramids indicate that it is unlikely that Lima monumental sites
like Maranga or Makatampu were urban-type settlements, or that the Lima society was a state-
level society, following the considerations of the theoretical part of this research. There is no
evidence of the existence of urban settlements in Lima, as seems existed for Moche III-IV with an
area for handicraft production and residences between the two great Moche pyramids of the
Moche River Valley (Chapdelaine 2002).
Earle (1972) proposed the existence of a Lima State for the Central Coast that included the
Lurín River Valley. In the middle part of that valley the first agricultural societies had an
irrigation system based on the existence of short extension channels. There were a series of
changes that would reveal the existence of this state during the mid-part of the Early Intermediate
Period: systems of irrigation with much more extensive channels agglutinated large settlements
that could be elite residences situated on the top of the hills for defensive reasons, as well as the
introduction of Lima-style pottery. Earle speculates that all these changes were due to the
expansion of a Lima State in this territory, whether by invasion or by the affiliation of local
groups to this state because they had economic ties (Earle 1972:476). However, Earle’s evidence
363
is not enough to demonstrate the existence of a Lima State. The same changes in the settlement
pattern and the incorporation of Lima pottery could also be due to the existence of polities that
expanded their radius of interaction with other societies. Or maybe the elites in the valley adopted
more prestigious cultural patterns as a way of maintaining their status within their own
communities.
MacNeish et al. (1975:52) also proposed the existence of a Lima State between AD 300 and
650 in the Central Coast with its core in the valleys of Chillón and Rímac rivers. However, they
did not show convincing evidence to support this claim.
8.5 The Wari occupation:
The Wari impact in the area of investigation occurred during Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon
Period. The best evidence of its presence was recovered in Platform 2 of LL-62 (Huaca
Aramburu) where Wari artifacts were found, including pottery, a quipu (an accounting device
made of strings and knots) and pyroengraved gourds associated with architecture made of small
cuboid mud bricks in Technique B, large mud bricks and rammed earth walls. Pottery discovered
in the western passage and in the enclosures located in the summit of the platform belongs to
various styles of Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period, especially Atarco, Pachacamac, Viñaque
and Nieveria.
The chronological position of the architecture with mud bricks in technique B in Huaca
Aramburu for Middle Horizon Epoch 2 was established by Alarcón (1971), who called it the
"Tiahuanacoide" phase. The excavations carried out between 1999 and 2002 in the site, allowed
the determination that this architecture was stratigraphically above the walls made of small mud
bricks in technique C, associated with Late Lima and Nieveria pottery from Epoch 1 of the
364
Middle Horizon. And, the final seal of the architecture with small mud bricks in technique B had
pottery and other artifacts of the Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period (Narváez 2000; Shady et
al. 2000; Chauca 2009).
The architecture with small mud bricks in technique B can be seen in several sectors of Huaca
Aramburu. It is on all the external sides of Platform 2, which has a central access on the north
façade leading to two passageways to the west, with a ramp, and to the east with a staircase
towards the summit where there are small enclosures with the walls painted in yellow (Chauca
2009). Small mud-brick architecture in technique B is also in Platform 3 where an open courtyard
is situated with trunks planted in its interior, Platform 4, and the southern slope of the pyramid
and west side where it is combined with rammed earth walls in order to strengthen and give
support to that side of the building.
Wari sherds were also found in Huaca 21 (Jijón 1949: Lam. LI). Lumbreras argued that this
pottery belongs to the Huarpa Terminal, Pongora and Chakipampa styles, from Epoch 1 of the
Middle Horizon Period, as well as Viñaque, Pachacamac and Huamanga styles from Epoch 2 and
“Wari Derivative” from the epochs 3 or 4 of the Middle Horizon Period (Lumbreras 2011:233-
235). Chakipampa-style pottery was found in layer 8 in the domestic area around M-82 (Huaca
20). These ceramics, as well as specimens of the same style from Huaca Aramburu, were not
imported from Ayacucho but of local production (Pillaca et al. 2009; Lazo et al. 2010:281).
Besides this pottery directly linked to Wari from the seal in the Western Passage in Platform 2,
there was Nieveria and Late Lima style pottery. However, it is possible that Late Lima pottery
could have been included in this context as part of the fill and corresponds to former times, since
many of the fragments are eroded. Though, it is also possible that some Lima designs, especially
the interlocking, had endured in the Valley during Epoch 2 of Middle Horizon Period.
365
Architecture with small mud-bricks in technique B was also found in M-80 (Huaca Potosí) and
M-78 (Huaca 25). It is also possible that architectonic phases of this period may have been in
Huaca Concha and the other structures located in the Campus of the University of San Marcos. A
Wari fragment was found in a surface layer in Huaca 9, and this could indicate that this
architecture existed in the upper sections of this edifice, that was demolished when the Campus of
the University was built. Burials with Chakipampa designs and a Pativilca style jar, from the
Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period, were found in Makatampu that indicate the beginning of
the use of this site as a cemetery.
It follows, then, that the Wari occupation in the area of investigation was very important and
included massive architectonic reconstructions of the Lima buildings in Maranga. In general,
there does not seem to have been a substantial change in the type of settlement in Maranga. The
same buildings continued in use, and new buildings do not appear to have been raised in the site
by the Wari. Although there are changes in the kinds of construction techniques, they are not a
radical transformation compared to what existed in the previous periods. Small mud bricks
continued to be used with the introduction of large mud bricks and rammed earth. The orientation
of these structures is the same as in previous periods: 25° NE.
Unfortunately there is only one radiocarbon date associated with the presence of Wari on the
Central Coast from the Chilca River Valley situated between 767 and 1181 cal AD (Table 8-1
and Chart 8-4). Isbell (2010) has proposed that the Conchopata and Robles Moqo styles
correspond to the second half of the Middle Horizon Period, which he called "Postincursion
Wari” that exist simultaneously with the later part of the Chakipampa style. These styles persisted
until the collapse of Wari and must be dated between 775 and 1000 Cal AD (Isbell 2010:208). If
those assertions are correct, it could be assumed that the Wari pottery from Huaca Aramburu
366
belongs to this time, which would explain the existence of pottery similar to Atarco and
Pachacamac styles along with other pottery with decorative Chakipampa designs all together in
the same context of the West Passage of the Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu. Then, the beginning
of the Wari presence in Lima could be dated between 800 and 850 cal AD and the end around
1000 cal AD (Table 8-1 and Chart 8-4).
What kind of society existed in the area of investigation during Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon
Period? The existence of Wari artifacts in sites of this the area indicates that the Maranga and La
Legua channel valleys were directly linked to Ayacucho, which leads to the question of whether
there was an empire during this time, such as the Tahuantinsuyu empire that existed hundreds of
years later (Menzel 1964; Lumbreras 1969, 1974; Schreiber 1992; Isbell 1977, 2000; Isbell and
Schreiber 1978), or if there were independent polities that traded and shared cultural traditions
(Shady 1982a, 1988; Topic and Topic 1986, 2001, 2010) or perhaps another model. Some facts
are useful in order to clarify the situation.
First of all, thanks to the investigations that have been conducted in Cajamarquilla, Huaca
Pucllana, and Huaca Tupac Amaru B, we know that the three sites were abandoned before the
Wari arrival to the valley (Segura 2001; Narváez 2006a; Flores 2005; Rodríguez 1999). There is
no architecture or archaeological artifacts that link those sites directly to Wari as in the case of the
Huaca Aramburu. The same situation seems to occur in Huaca Trujillo. The site was partially
excavated by Jorge Silva, who pointed out that he found an occupation of Epoch 2 of the Middle
Horizon Period in the site. However, the material presented as evidence (Silva 1992:64-65) hardly
belongs to that time, and it is likely that this pyramid had the same fate as the nearby
Cajamarquilla. The Nieveria cemetery continued in use during this time. In the middle section of
the Rimac valley, at the site Huampaní Alto burials were found with ceramics from epochs 1 and
367
2 of the Middle Horizon Period (Guerrero and Palacios 1994). Unfortunately information about
other sites in the Rimac River Valley like the huacas Granados-Santa Felicia in the Surco Channel
Valley, and the results of the excavations during the 1990s in Huaca Melgarejo in the Surco
Valley Channel, or in Huaca Catalina Huanca in the Ate Valley Channel or in the huacas of the
Park of the Legends Zoo, have never been published.
Thus, by what is known so far, it seems that several of the large Late Lima monumental sites
of the Rimac River Valley were abandoned at the beginning of the Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon
Period, although some small sites survived. The monumental architecture was concentrated at
Maranga, where the most important activities took place.
Little can be said about the neighboring valley of the Chillon River north of the Rímac. “Cerro
Culebras” seems to have been abandoned since Late Lima times (MacNeish et al. 1975:53). There
have been no excavations in the large Lima sites in the Chillon valley such as Copacabana and La
Uva, and for the moment it is impossible to know if they survived the Wari incursion in the
Central Coast. Apparently Socos, a site that had been considered Wari (Isla and Guerrero 1987),
in fact was not, although some Wari artifacts were found in the vicinity of the site (Jennings
2006:270; Segura and Shimada 210:126). Further north, Playa Grande seems to have been
abandoned although there are burials of this period in the Bay of Ancon (Kaulicke 1997: fig. 5,
fig. 53).
In the valley of the Lurín River, the most important evidence of the Wari presence has been
found at Pachacamac. Uhle found a burial complex with very fine ceramics of Wari style that he
considered "Tiahuanaco derivative" (Uhle 1903). This led Dorothy Menzel to define the most
important ceramic style in the Central Coast during this period with the name of “Pachacamac
Style”, with two phases A and B. During this time the site achieved great prestige as an oracle,
368
although probably not independently but as part of the Wari Empire as it was during the Inca
domain (Menzel 1964:70-71).
Segura and Shimada’s (2010) investigations in the “Pilgrims Plaza” in Pachacamac seem to
contradict this assertion. They did not find greater evidence of the Wari presence on the site, and
there is practically a hiatus between Late Lima and Ychsma occupations. In this sector only a
sherd was found related to the Vinaque/Atarco styles (Segura and Shimada 2010: fig.7.6). In a
trench located in front of the “Painted Temple” in Pachacamac a partially removed burial was
found that had a jar with polychrome decoration and the representation of a human face on the
body that is attributed to Epoch 3 of the Middle Horizon Period (Segura and Shimada 2010: fig.
30b). A radiocarbon date associated with the vessel lies between 997 and 1202 Cal AD (Table 8.1
and Chart 8-2). The vessel has certain similarities with the beaker of Makatampu MT-6823
(Figure A-31) that would actually correspond to the Three-color Geometric style from the
beginning of the Late Intermediate Period.
Similar conclusions were reached by Marcone based on his work in the “Small Mud Brick”
sector of Pachacamac, where he found Late Lima pottery with virtually no presence of Nieveria
and an absence of Wari artifacts (Marcone 2010). However an examination of the pottery
published from this sector (Marcone 2001: fig. 3; Marcone 2010) leads to the conclusion that it is
a Middle and Late Lima building which is abandoned before Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon
Period, and actually it does not have to be considered in the discussions about the presence of
Wari in the Central Coast.
The work of Ángeles and Pozzi-Escot, contradicts the idea of an insignificant Wari occupation
at Pachacamac, because they identified the existence of monumental architecture of Epoch 2 of
the Middle Horizon Period in the site, with buildings made from large mud bricks (Ángeles and
369
Pozzi-Escot 2010) that seem to be equivalent to those from LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu) that were
found associated with the architecture made with small mud bricks in technique B.
The Wari pottery discovered at sites like Huaca Aramburu and Pachacamac reveals direct links
to Ayacucho. There is not only fine pottery with polychrome decoration that reproduces the Wari
forms and decorative designs, but also some plain domestic vessels that also imitate their
counterparts in Ayacucho. The existence of independent centers that maintained commercial trade
between them, as was argued by Shady (1982a, 1988) could be contradicted, because if such were
the case, in the collections of the investigation area, not only should Wari related pottery appear,
but also Cajamarca, Late Moche, Tiahuanaco, etc., and these are absent. On the other hand, Late
Lima or Nieveria pottery styles have not been reported in Ayacucho. Foreign style pottery vessels,
besides those similar to Wari, are really scarce in the Rimac River Valley. There is a Moche-Wari
bottle from Huaquerones in the Middle part of the Rimac River Valley (Stumer 1958: Fig. 5), a
Nieveria stirrup spout bottle that resembles Moche bottles from Nieveria Cemetery (Valdez 2010
fig. 6g), and a fragment of the same type of neck from Huaca 20 in Maranga (Pierce 2008:142)
and three Middle Sican jugs from Pachacamac (Uhle 1903: Plate 8: figs. 8-10) which must be
located between the end of the Middle Horizon and the beginnings of the Late Intermediate
periods.
In the West Passage of the Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu, there are other artifacts along with
the pottery of Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period: two pyroengraved gourds (Narvaez 2000)
and a Wari quipu (Shady et al. 2000). One of the gourds has the representation of two scenes in
which two face-to-face characters are carrying weapons, one of them with an ax. They are
wearing special clothing and waving arms and legs. Along with the characters, there are several
freshly cut off heads, one of which still has part of the cervical vertebrae. It is difficult to
370
determine accurately if it is a scene of combat between the two characters, or they are dancing,
perhaps celebrating a victory while carrying the heads of the defeated, or if it is the representation
of a battle that occurred in Lima, or elsewhere, or is a mythical event between two fantastic
characters (Narváez 2000: Fig. 4). The other gourd has the representation of frontal faces with
open mouths showing the teeth. Because there are appendices emerging from the heads, they have
some similarity with the face of the Staff God common in the art of Wari and Tiahuanaco
(Narváez 2000: Fig. 6).
Although Wari burials never have been found in the area of investigation, they were found in
Pucllana, deposited when the Lima building was abandoned, and in Pachacamac and Ancon, with
a complexity that is not observed in other burials from the Central Coast in earlier times. The
funeral bundles have elaborate false heads, often made of wood, as well as very fine textiles and
ceramics (Kaulicke 2000: figs. 1-6) and in the case of Ancon complex shell ornaments, metal
(copper and gold) and pearl artifacts (Ravines 1977). This would indicate a more pronounced
social differentiation than in the past.
The main conclusion that can be reached from the recovered information is that during Epoch
2 of the Middle Horizon Period the area of investigation and the Central Coast in general were
closely connected with Wari in Ayacucho. The Wari presence in Lima involved major changes,
since many important Lima sites were abandoned, or at least diminished considerably in
importance becoming cemeteries, while the power was concentrated in Maranga and probably
also in Pachacamac. In addition, it is possible to notice the beginning of a greater social
differentiation compared with previous times.
However, the architecture of this epoch in Maranga had no major differences with former
times. Unlike the pottery, there is no introduction of classic Wari architecture, which is
371
characterized by orthogonal and cellular layouts of the settlements, or D-shaped layout buildings.
Therefore, it is possible that there were local Central Coast elites, descendants or not from the old
Lima elites, during Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period that were linked to Wari in a level of
dependency that allowed them to identify with the imperial ideology and use the same type of
artifacts as the Ayacucho metropolis as a way of keeping prestige and local power.
However, if this is true, several questions arise: was there a military conquest of the Central
Coast by an expansive Wari empire? Did they impose the presence of imperial officials with the
aim of gathering tribute in goods or labor force? Were the ancient local elites toppled and
replaced by new ones that kept fidelity to the Ayacuchan domain? These are questions that remain
pending for future research.
8.6 The Ychsma occupation:
Ychsma pottery style from all its phases has been discovered in large quantities in the
archaeological sites in the area of investigation. The associated architecture is characterized by the
use of two types of rammed earth walls, which have been called Class 1 and Class 2 (Espinoza
2010). There are large pyramidal buildings composed of several superimposed platforms on
which summits there are enclosures of varied morphology interconnected by narrow passageways
and accesses. There are also great walls that delimit certain sectors of the artificial valleys that
were accessed by long narrow walled passages, some of which zigzag near the accesses to those
enclosures.
There are several radiocarbon dates associated with the latest occupations in Pachacamac
(Paredes and Franco 1987; Michczyński et al. 2003; Segura and Shimada 2010; Eeckouth 2010).
Unfortunately, the lack of publications about the association of these dates with pottery makes it
372
difficult to establish the absolute chronology of the Ychsma phases following Vallejo’s sequence.
A date in a cemetery under the Peregrines Plaza of Pachacamac in the Lurin River Valley
(AA70599) associated with a Provincial Wari vessel (Segura and Shimada 2010: table 1, 140), or
perhaps Three-color Geometric style, is between 997 and 1206 Cal AD. A date from Cemetery I
of Pachacamac associated with early Ychsma pottery (Eeckouth 2010: Table 1) is between 990
and 1181 Cal AD. This could indicate that the end of the Wari occupation and the beginning of
Ychsma would be around 1000 Cal AD (Table 8-1 and Chart 8-4).
The Early Ychsma A phase is characterized by pottery decorated with three colors and certain
forms such as double-body vessels. However, pottery from this phase appears in small quantity
and only in the Makatampu collection, as well as a couple of pieces published from a burial in
Huaca Middendorf (Jijón 1949; see Appendix C). In this thesis I have called it Three-color
Geometric, following the name initially used by those who defined this type of ceramic (Strong
1925; Kroeber 1926).
It is not clear that this Three-color pottery defined a first phase in the Ychsma style sequence.
Unfortunately there are no records for the Makatampu collections that would allow knowing
what types of plain domestic vessels were associated, if this ceramic can be isolated in a separate
phase or if it is coeval with the ceramics that Vallejo considered Early Ychsma B. Unfortunately,
there are no published contexts from other sites that can be used to solve this question. It is
possible that this could be a prestigious pottery, not massively produced, and coeval with Early
Ychsma B phase pottery.
Lima pyramids in Makatampu became cemeteries during the Early Ychsma A and B phases. It
is also possible that the first construction phases of the late rammed earth buildings in Maranga,
Makatampu, and even Mateo Salado, correspond to those initial phases of the Ychsma style. It is
373
important to note that, if Pachacamac or Chakipampa Wari pottery styles continued to be
produced until the end of the Middle Horizon Period (Isbell 2010), then Early Ychsma pottery
phase, could continue immediately and the idea of an economic depression or depopulation of the
Rimac River Valley during the end of the Middle Horizon (MacNeish et al. 1975:62; Vallejo
2004:605) would be totally wrong. There are also many vessels from the Early Ychsma B phase
from Huallamarca, in the valley of the Huatica Channel, as well as Three-color Geometric pottery
(Dolorier and Casas 2008, 2009).
Middle Ychsma pottery phases A and B are better documented. The classic type during these
phases is the pot with pedestal base, discovered in burials in Makatampu, and in Huaca Concha,
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, Huaca Huantille and the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu as
fragments.
However, there is a lack of records about the associations of those phases with certain types of
architecture. It is possible to assume that given the continuous architectural reconstruction of the
late great buildings, there are Middle Ychsma construction phases that are associated with this
type of pottery. The publication of the results obtained with the recent excavations in Huaca San
Miguel and the Mateo Salado Group should clarify this questions.
8.7 The Inca occupation:
During the Late Horizon the Peruvian Central Coast was incorporated into the Inca Empire,
resulting in changes in the area of investigation like the emergence of the Late Ychsma B phase,
as well as pottery that imitates the forms and types of decoration of the Inca style pottery from
Cusco. Another style that appears along with Late Ychsma ceramics is Chancay. Also, there were
374
important architectural reconstructions of the Ychsma buildings, and several buildings from the
previous periods were used as cemeteries.
Based on Colonial Period documents the year 1476 AD has been established as the beginning
of the Inca expansion in the Ica River Valley and the onset of the Late Horizon Period and its end
with the arrival of Europeans to Peru in 1532 (Rowe 1962:49).
Late Ychsma A phase pottery from the end of the Late Intermediate Period, and Late Ychsma
B phase pottery from the Late Horizon Period, has appeared in human burials in the area of
investigation. The most important types of both phases are the pots with vertical strap and
rounded handles from shoulders to the rim, the vessels with "half-arrow" rims, and those vessels
with “serpents in relief” decoration on pots and jars, found in burials in LL-14 and LL-15
(Makatampu), LL-59 (Huaca Concha), LM-52 (Huaca Huantille) and M-65 (Huaca
Huantinamarca), as well as sherds on the Southern Slope of LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu), LL-75
(Huaca Middendorf), M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa) and M-15 (Mateo Salado). Their presence
is probably associated with the latest construction phases of the great buildings of rammed earth
walls in the area.
In contrast, Inca style ceramics (Rowe 1944; Meyers 1975) are very scarce in the area of
investigation. The Inca ceramics that have been found include a sherd from a jar, probably an Inca
aryballos, with the "fern-leaf" design type from M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos) (Cárdenas 1965:160),
an aryballos from the superficial layer of M-69 (Huaca 64) (Cárdenas 1997:7) and a jar that is a
combination between an Inca aryballos and an Ychsma face-neck jar of LL-75 (Huaca 21) (Jijón
1949: fig. 94; Lumbreras 2011:61 fig. A). Canziani said that Lumbreras found some Inca pottery
sherds in the "Inca Palace" (M-123) but he did not publish any pictures or drawings of them
375
(Canziani 1987:16), and Jijón found the head of a sculptured feline of an Inca aryballos in LL-9
(Huaca Concha) (Jijón 1949:148-149).
Why are there so few Inca style specimens in the area of investigation? Inca artifacts have
appeared in several sites of the Central Coast: Canto Chico (Ravines 2000:257), Huaquerones
(Cock and Goycochea 2004), Huaca Santa Catalina (Cornejo 2002: figs. 4b and 5c), Huaca Santa
Cruz (Cornejo 2004: figs. 12, 13 and 32), Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002b: figs. 9-12) and
Pachacamac (Uhle 1903 sheet 18: figs. 1-8; Ángeles 2011: 42-48, 69-75), so the case of the
valleys of La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua seems to be atypical. There is not enough data
available to resolve this question. Speculating, maybe more Inca artifacts were used in places
where human groups arrived directly from Cuzco, or where coastal elites were imposed by the
Cuzquenian State in order to exercise better control of those territories, while in the case of the
area of investigation, there was a continuity of local elites without greater government
intervention because they expressed their loyalty to the Empire.
The Chancay pottery style has been found in small amounts in the area of investigation. It
appeared as funerary offerings in burials in LL-62 (Huaca Middendorf) (Jijón 1949), and LL-14
(Makatampu), and there is a sherd from M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa). It could be
chronologically situated from the second half of the Late Intermediate Period to the Late Horizon
Period. Its little presence could indicate that this pottery came through exchange or that it
accompanied the movement of individuals or groups located north of the Chillon River Valley. It
is also possible that those Chancay specimens could be local imitations.
Several Late Ychsma structures have been found in the area of investigation and are composed
of walls made of rammed earth Class 1 and Class 2, the later a Late Horizon Period introduction
376
to the valley, along with big cuboid mud bricks that were used as secondary construction material
(Espinoza 2010:298).
In the valley of La Magdalena Channel the most important site is LM-52 (Huaca Huantille). In
this site the rammed earth walls follow the orientation of the irrigation channels of the area that is
65° NE. The site is located next to the last extension of the La Magdalena Channel to the west.
Several other mounds were distributed following the main channel, but those disappeared, and
their chronology and cultural associations are unknown.
In the Maranga Channel Valley there are two mains Ychsma settlements: M-12 - M-19 (Mateo
Salado) and the south section of Maranga Group (M-87 - M-155), that seem to have been coeval.
Mateo Salado was approximately 553 m N-S and 603 m W-E, and is composed of five pyramidal
buildings of different dimensions, and walled compounds, with an area of 0.33 km². Three of the
main pyramids M.13, M-14, and M-15 were located inside a huge walled compound. The biggest
pyramid is M-15, with its frontal side looking north, has a staircase or ramp that gives access to
the summit of the building, where there is a large rectangular enclosure with a bench at the
southern side and a small ramp in the middle. Several smaller enclosures are located towards the
South, East and West of the main enclosure. M-14 has smaller dimensions, with enclosures of
various dimensions and an open courtyard. M-13 is less well known given the lack of excavations
in the site, but seems to have had a similar morphology to M-14 but smaller in size. These
buildings include open areas between them without evidence of the presence of other structures,
and maybe there were open plazas. M-12 is located outside the walled compound, a pyramidal
structure with the particularity of having several small rooms on the southern flank of the building
that were probably deposits. The fifth pyramid is also outside the walled area and is located in the
377
southwest part of the group. The lack of investigations in this structure prevents us from knowing
more details about its configuration.
The late section of Maranga was 1340 m W-E by 680 N-S, covering an approximate area of
0.9 km2, almost three times larger than Mateo Salado. It consists of a large walled compound with
access in the North, West and Southwest. Inside the compound M-141 (Huaca La Palma) is
located, a pyramid with a frontal ramp oriented North with a main access in the western side
which leads to a walled narrow road that goes to the west side of the walled compound. Attached
to the West side of the walled enclosure there is a series of platforms with small enclosures. One
of them, M-123, seems to have had a double-jamb access that is an architectural feature typically
Inca. Other small enclosures on platforms of similar morphology are located south of the
compound. In addition to these buildings, other small pyramids and walls are situated inside the
compound, especially towards the North and West from Huaca La Palma.
Outside the Walled Compound, to the east, there are several big pyramidal buildings of great
importance: M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos), M-91 (Huaca Blanca Cruz), M-95 (Huaca San Miguel), M-
96 (Huaca La Cruz) and the small pyramids M-97, M-89, M-87, M-88, M-92 and M-93. The
excavations made at Huaca Tres Palos, Huaca Cruz Blanca, and Huaca San Miguel, revealed the
existence on the top of the superimposed platforms of the pyramids, and at different levels, large
open courtyards, some of them with benches and niches in the walls, as well as smaller enclosures
of quadrangular layout that are connected by long and narrow passages at the top of the pyramids.
In the valley of the La Legua Channel, there are two large Ychsma settlements: the late section
of Makatampu and Huaca Chacra Puente. The first has an approximate area of 0.4 km² and the
second only 0.3 km². They have much smaller dimensions compared to the sites of the valley of
La Magdalena and Maranga channels. In the whole area of the valley of the La Legua Channel
378
there are numerous archaeological sites, although in fewer amounts than in the other two artificial
valleys.
The late occupation in Makatampu is little known due to the destruction of the site and the
deficient rescue work done in the 1940’s. Based on the 1944 aerial picture and the maps made of
the site (Tello 1999:119), the Ychsma occupation of the site occurred over the old Lima buildings
LL-15, where there was a small walled compound with high rammed earth walls located on the
north side of this building, and several small enclosures situated in the lower SW side of the Lima
pyramid. There are also some thick rammed earth walls in the North side of LL-14. But the most
important Ychsma occupation in the site was on the west side with the structures LL-11, LL-12,
and LL-13. Those buildings look very destroyed in the 1944 aerial picture and in Tello’s map of
the site. There are some wide rectangular enclosures in this part.
Chacra Puente is composed of a pyramid with frontal ramp oriented west, also with a frontal
plaza and a series of platforms and enclosures at the back of the building towards the west. The
morphology of this building has similarities with the pyramids with ramps located in Pachacamac,
and Pampa de las Flores in the valley of the Lurin River, and Puruchuca and Huaquerones in the
Ate Channel Valley and M-141 (Huaca La Palma) in the valley of the Rímac River, The whole
site was inside a walled compound that was clearly registered in the map of the site made by Tello
(1999:125) and in the aerial photo of 1944.
In the area of investigation there is also evidence of simple rural populations without
monumental architecture. In LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu), there are several smaller structures,
comprising small platforms and enclosures made with walls of reused Lima small mud bricks
called “Technique A” (Alarcón 1971), and in M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa) there were simple
379
structures made of boulders joined with mud mortar (Ravines 1985:50). These constructions seem
to be villages of rural populations.
An old map of the area of investigation (Figure 8-1), found in the Tello Archive of the
National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and History of Peru made during the 1930’s,
shows the area that was called "Huaticamarca". In this map are Makatampu, Maranga, Mateo
Salado and Huaca Huantille groups, as well as several isolated buildings distributed around the
area. The most interesting thing of this map is that the territory seems to be divided into large
sections by walls, walled roads, and paths on the walls as parapets. The 1944 aerial picture shows
some of these walls and roads. Unfortunately, because of the degree of destruction of the sites by
that year due to the agricultural and urban expansion, it is impossible to corroborate whether this
division established by Tello was real or inspired more by the imagination. If it is accurate, then it
is possible to consider that the La Magdalena, Maranga and the La Legua channel valleys were
effectively divided into large walled sections accessed by walled roads. Inside these large
enclosures there were several monumental archaeological buildings, villages, irrigation channels,
reservoirs, and agricultural fields.
The walled roads which can be seen in the 1944 aerial pictures seem to converge from
different directions of the valley to the Walled Compound of Maranga. There are three of those
roads which range from the coast and head to the southern part of the group. East of the enclosure
there are 6 roads, one of which is M-73, the Inca Road of the Catholic University that is still
preserved. On the north side of the Walled Compound there are two roads located west of LL-59
(Huaca Concha) and LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu), one of which LL-61 is inside the campus of the
University of San Marcos. Although interrupted by Venezuela Avenue and agricultural fields, it
seems that this road is the same as M-119, which, after zigzagging, reaches the northern access of
380
the Walled Compound of Maranga. On the west side there are two walled roads, one of which, M-
121, serves as access to the Walled Compound and continues inside the enclosure until it reached
M-141 (Huaca La Palma).
Figure 8-1. Map of the area of investigation from the Tello Archive (circa 1935). MNAAHP.
381
Based on what it is possible to see in the aerial pictures, these roads do not seem to extend
very far from the archaeological groups. The longest of all, located on the west end of the north
side of the Walled Compound was 1.5 km long. Others, like M-73 (Catholic Inca Road) was 2.9
km long. Those roads did not connect one settlement with another, they abruptly appear at certain
points in the Valley heading to the Walled Compound of Maranga. Perhaps they connect the main
buildings with the accesses of the large walled areas mapped by Tello, in where they were
located, restricting the number of pedestrians and controlling their mobility.
Of course all the roads that are seen in aerial pictures are not necessarily Pre-colonial. Many of
them appeared in Colonial times, named in that period “royal roads” (caminos reales), such as the
road that connects Bellavista with La Magdalena or Callao with Lima, and others that led to the
Colonial Period estates. It is difficult to know with certainty in many cases, from the single
observation of aerial pictures, which are Pre-colonial, Colonial or Republican.
Based on what is known about the late occupation of the La Magdalena, Maranga and La
Legua valleys, it is possible to argue about the following five-tier settlement hierarchy based on
the number of constructions and the area of the sites:
1) The southern section of Maranga Group.
2) Mateo Salado Group.
3) Makatampu, Chacra Cerro and Huantille.
4) Mounds and small pyramidal buildings distributed along this area. For instance: Huaca
Palomino (LL-41), Huaca 65 (M-66), Huaca La Luz (M-65), Huaca Panteón Chino (M-57), etc.
5) Rural settlements made of simple materials like boulders or reused Lima small mud bricks. For
instance those found over Huaca Aramburu, Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa or M-170.
382
What was the political organization in the valley during the Late Horizon Period? The Colonial
Period documents available for the Rimac River valley combined with the archaeological data
could shed light on this question.
It is known that in the area of investigation there were three polities called Callao, Lima and
Maranga. The Colonial Period information indicates that the lord of Lima had lands in the valley
of Huatica Channel and his main settlement was in Limatambo. He also had lands in Lima
downtown around the Main Square, also in the Huatica Channel Valley and where the Colonial
Period town of La Magdalena was founded in the valley of the channel of the same name. The
indigenous lord of Callao had lands in the area where the port was found, and the lord of Maranga
near the old Colonial Period estate of Maranga. Those lords, during the Colonial Period, were
forced to leave their settlements and, with their people and lesser lords, were reunited in La
Magdalena town founded by the Spanish authorities. The indigenous population of Callao was
concentrated in the town known as San Miguel de Pitipiti in the port.
María Rostworowski (1978) argued that each one of the polities, or “señoríos” as she called
them, distributed their lands along the main irrigation channels in the valley. The “señorio” of
Lima could be located around La Magdalena Channel, Guala around La Legua Channel, and
Callao in the port.
Actually, the Colonial Period information contradicts this model. The trials about lands and
wills of the local indigenous lords indicate that they had lands in different parts of the Rímac
River Valley, and not following a specific channel. As was discussed, the lord of Lima had his
lands mainly in the Huatica Channel Valley but as well in La Magdalena channel valley and even
on the North side of the Rímac River Valley in the place called Pacan. The lord of Huatca had
lands in the southern part of the Huatica Valley and on the border between the valleys of La
383
Magdalena and Maranga. The lord of Maranga had properties close to the Colonial Period estate
of Maranga and in Callao.
This strongly suggests that the lands of the polities were not following the course of the main
channels, and actually were located in certain portions of the valley that could be irrigated with
the waters from one or more of these channels. Moreover, the polity property of the lands might
be dispersed in nature, a situation which was intuited by Rostworowski, although she did not
developed the idea that the lands of indigenous lords were not concentrated in one specific part of
the Valley, but in different areas, interspersed with the lands of other lords, which could explain
the situation described in the Colonial Period documents about the lords of Lima, Huatca, and
Maranga.
During the Late Horizon Period, the polities seem to have had a main settlement where the
indigenous lord lived and other minor settlements for secondary lords and commoners. The main
settlement for Lima was Limatambo in the Huatica valley. For Maranga there was another tambo
named “Mayacatama”, whose location is uncertain. Maybe it was the southern section of Maranga
where the Great Walled Compound and the pyramids Tres Palos, San Miguel, La Cruz and Cruz
Blanca are situated. The location of the main settlement of Callao is unknown, although some
documents of the 16th century mentioned a “tambo” and some “walls of the Indians” in a place
where the port was founded.
The Colonial Period documents describe those major settlements. But they also mention the
existence of minor settlements that were subject to the major ones, as well as lands destined for
agriculture production that were properties of the lords, and other lands for the Cuzquenian state
that were known as “lands of the Sun”. During the Colonial Period those lands became properties
384
of the indigenous lords and commoners, and they could sell, donate or pass them on as
inheritances.
Although is still hard to connect the information in the Colonial Period documents with late
settlement pattern of the area of investigation, it is possible to consider two models of political
and territorial organization for the Late Horizon Period in this area:
1) A main polity in the area, called Maranga, that comprises great sections of the valleys of La
Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga, seconded by several settlements whose importance depended
on the importance of their lords. Those settlements could have been Mateo Salado, Makatampu,
Chacra Puente or Huantille. Those secondary settlements could be followed by others of tertiary
importance with rural settlements situated around the main ceremonial, administrative or
residential centers of the elites, which are the different huacas distributed along the three valleys.
Another main polity could have been located in Callao, about which there is not much
information, and that in turn may have had primary, secondary and tertiary settlements. The La
Magdalena Valley, especially where the Colonial Period town of La Magdalena was founded,
could have belonged to the Lima lord.
2) There may have been several polities in the area apart from Maranga, Callao, and Lima. There
could have been one in the eastern section of the valley of Maranga with Mateo Salado as the
main settlement and secondary settlements of lesser lords in the surroundings. Maranga polity
could have been located in the southern section of the Maranga Group and the estate of the same
name. Another could have been situated in the southern section of the La Magdalena Channel
with Huantille as its main settlement; and another in the La Legua valley with its main settlements
in Chacra Puente and Makatampu. Besides this, the lords of Lima and Huatca could have had
lands in some other places in the area of investigation.
385
3) Based on the Colonial Period documents that mention the existence of two main lords for
Maranga and Lima, and probably Callao, it could be argued that there was a bi-partition of the
polities and their lands. In this model, the polity of Maranga could be divided in two, one with
Maranga as its main settlement and the other with Mateo Salado, something that could explain the
existence of two main lords named Chayavilca and Marcatanta, taking into account that both sites
are situated in the valley of the Maranga Channel. Lima could be divided between Taulichusco
and Caxapaxa and Callao between Guacho and Manchipula.
More research in the Colonial and Republican periods documents is necessary in order to
establish where the lands of the polities were located and how they could be related with the late
pre-colonial structures in the valley.
386
Table 8-1. Published Radiocarbon dates for Pottery Styles in the Central Peruvian Coast
Lab No. Measurement Site Associated Source Calibrated

B.P. pottery ShCal 13
(95.4%)
GDS-285 480 ± 45 Pachacamac Inca material Eeckhout 1402 - 1621
Lurin 2010 cal AD
L-123c 500 ± 120 Pachacamac Inca and Inca Ravines and 1281-1667
Lurin associated Álvarez1967 cal AD
I.1248 665 ± 150 Cuculi I Cuculi Engel 1984 1046 – 1626

Chilca cal AD
GDS-288 990 ± 40 Pachacamac Early Ychsma Eeckhout 990 – 1181

Lurin 2010 cal AD
AA70599 994 ± 52 Pachacamac Provincial Wari Shimada et 997 – 1202

Lurin Three-color al. 2010 cal AD
Geometric ?
Gif -1071 1100 ± 100 Lomas Wari- Engel 1984 767 - 1206
Sorpresa Tiahuanaco cal AD
Chilca impact
R-301 1100 ± 100 Cajamarquilla Late Lima Sestieri 1971 767 - 1206
Rimac cal AD
R-302 1160 ± 50 Cajamarquilla Late Lima Sestieri 1971 777 - 1021

Rimac cal AD
Hd-21929 1252 ± 18 Huaca 20 Late Lima Mac Kay and 772 - 882
Rímac Santa Cruz cal AD
2009
LP-1388 1340 ± 50 Playa Grande Middle Lima Falcón 2004 650 - 860
Chillón cal AD
GaK-2247 1370±240 Tablada de Tablada de Makowski 210 – 1200

Lurín Lurín 2002 cal AD
L-384A 1390 ± 160 Playa Grande Lima 2 or 3 Stumer 1961 373 - 1019
Chillón cal AD
Hd-21614 1442 ± 29 Huaca 20 Middle Lima Mac Kay y 599 - 676

Rímac Santa Cruz cal AD
2009
GX-455 1485 ± 100 Playa Grande Lima 1 Patterson 380 - 839
Chillón 1966 cal AD
387
Table 8-1. Published Radiocarbon dates for Pottery Styles in the Central Coast
(Continuation)
GX-454 1505 ± 100 Cerro Lima 5 Patterson 366 - 770

Culebras 1966 cal AD
Chillón
I-12,714 1510 ± 80 Cerro Media Lima 4 Quilter 1986 409 - 762
Luna Chillón cal AD
PUCP-13 1530 ± 90 Tablada de Tablada de Makowski 365 – 762

Lurin Lurín 2002 cal AD
UGA-1451 1590 ± 120 Tablada de Tablada de Makowski 222 – 761

Lurín Lurín 2002 cal AD
LJ-1348 1630 ± 150 Cerro Lima 5 Hubbs and 79- 765

Culebras Bien 1967 cal AD
Chillón
Gd-7648 2210 ± 40 Pampa Chica Janabarriu Dulanto 2009 366 – 105
Lurin influence calBC

Lurin influence cal BC
Gd-11192 2410 ± 70 Pampa Chica Janabarriu Dulanto 2009 766 - 255 cal
Lurin influence BC
I.812 2420 ± 175 Pantano II Chavin Engel 1984 894– 56

Chilca ceramics cal BC
Gd-7653 2440 ± 40 Pampa Chica Janabarriu Dulanto 2009 751 - 392

Lurin influence Cal BC

I.2065 2490 ± 110 Rio VIII Classic Chavin Engel 1984 818 – 258
Chilca cal BC
GX-228 2495 ± 95 Rio VIII Classic Chavin Engel 1984 799 – 391
Chilca calBC


388
Table 8-1. Published Radiocarbon dates for Pottery Styles in the Central Coast
(Continuation)
GX-1358 2695 ± 110 Ancon Chavín Burger 1981 1056 – 416

influence cal BC
Católica-09 2730 ± 80 Garagay Marrón tosco Ravines et al. 1055 – 554

Rímac 1982; Burger cal BC
1981
GX-2478 2760 ± 200 Tank site Garagay Burger 1981 1393 - 403
Ancon influence cal BC
GX-1357 2805 ± 115 Ancon Garagay Burger 1981 1281 – 591

influence cal BC

influence cal BC
GX-1429 2875 ± 95 Ancon Garagay Burger 1981 1260 - 809

influence cal BC

influence cal BC

influence cal BC

influence cal BC

influence ca lBC

influence cal BC
GX-1240 3715 ± 110 Ancon Earliest pottery Patterson and 2451 – 1751
at Ancon Moseley cal BC
1968
GX-1241 3680 ± 130 Ancon Earliest pottery Patterson and 2455 – 1687
at Ancon Moseley cal BC
1968
389
Chart 8-1. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates of the Peruvian Central Coast
Years Catolica 09 GX-2478 GX-1357 GX-2385 GX-1429 GX-1438 GX-1349 GX-2384 GX-1235 GX-2477 GX-1240 GX-1241
Pottery Style Phase BC Marron Garagay Garagay Garagay Garagay Garagay Garagay Garagay Garagay Garagay Earliest Earliest
Tosco Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Pottery Pottery
50
100
150
200
Topara 250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Ancon V - X 650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
Ancon I - IV 1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
Late Preceramic 2200
2250
2300
2350
2400
2450
2500
390
Gd-7648 Gd-7652 Gd-11192 Gd-7653 Gd-11200 Gd-11202 Gd-11197

Years Janabarriu Janabarriu Janabarriu
Pottery Style Phase I.812 Janabarriu Janabarriu I.2065 GX-228 Janabarriu Janabarriu GX-1358
BC (?) (?) (?) Chavin (?) (?) Chavin Chavin (?) (?) Chavin
50
100
150
200
Topara 250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Ancon V - X 650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
Ancon I - IV 1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
391
LP-1388 Hd-21614 LJ-1348 GX-454 I-12114 L-384A GX-455 GaK-2247 PUCP-13 UGA-1451
Pottery Style Phase Years Middle Middle Lima Lima Lima Lima Lima Tablada Tablada Tablada
AD Lima Lima 5 5 4 2-3 1 de Lurin de Lurin de Lurin
1700
Colonial 1650
1600
1550
Inca-Late Ychsma B 1500
1450
Late Ychsma A 1400
1350
1300
Middle Ychsma 1250
1200
1150
1100
Early Ychsma - 1050
Three-color Geometric 1000
950
Wari - Nieveria 900
850
Late Lima - Nieveria 800
750
700
Middle Lima 650
600
550
500
Early Lima - Topara 450
400
350
300
250
200
Topara 150
100
50
0
392
L-123c AA70599 R-301 R-302 Hd-21919

Pottery Style Phase Years GDS-285 L-123c L-123c Early Three-color Gif-1071 Late Late Late
AD Inca Inca Cuculi Ychsma Geometric Wari Lima Lima Lima
1700
Colonial 1650
1600
1550
Inca-Late Ychsma B 1500
1450
Late Ychsma A 1400
1350
1300
Middle Ychsma 1250
1200
1150
1100
Early Ychsma - 1050
Three-color Geometric 1000
950
Wari - Nieveria 900
850
Late Lima - Nieveria 800
750
700
Middle Lima 650
600
393
8.8 The area of investigation compared with other valleys of the Peruvian Coast: The
sequence of occupation and settlement pattern in the valleys of La Magdalena, Maranga and La
Legua channels, were compared with other Peruvian coastal valleys where similar studies have
been made, in order to find similarities that could help to reach better interpretations of the
evidence gathered during the investigation.
In the lower section of the Chillon River Valley, situated 12 km north of the area of
investigation, there is evidence of human occupation from the beginning of the Early Preceramic
Period with hunter camps and quarry workshops. During the Middle Preceramic Period there were
camps of hunters and gatherers of shellfish and plants. In the Late Preceramic, monumental
buildings such as “Pampas de los Perros” and “El Paraíso” emerged in the valley and the
economy was oriented towards the collection of shellfish and incipient agriculture (Silva 1996:
102, 406). No evidence of those periods was found in the area of investigation in the Rimac River
Valley.
During the Initial and Early Horizon periods, as in the case of the Rimac River Valley, there
are several U-shaped pyramidal buildings such as Huacoy, the biggest one, oriented along the
course of the Chillón River. The associated pottery is Ancon style and the political organization is
thought to be chiefdom type (Silva 1996:113-140). During the beginnings of the Early
Intermediate Period Miramar and Ventanilla pottery styles developed in the lower valley. As in
the Topara style, Ventanilla has double-spout-and-bridge bottles. The settlements associated with
this pottery were small domestic sites situated along the seashore (Silva 1996:162-164, 380-381).
The next occupation phase is related with the Lima culture in the Early Intermediate Period.
Settlements with monumental architecture, like Cerro Culebras, Copacabana and La Uva groups,
were situated in the lower valley, some of them with evidence of domestic settlements, with
394
houses made of cane, boulders and small mud bricks around the big pyramids (Silva 1996:144).
The kind of society during this time seems to have been chiefdom-like. There is not enough
evidence to support the idea of the existence of a state or that the huge Lima settlements were
urban, although Silva recognizes that more investigations are necessary to prove those assertions
(Silva 1996:385). This situation is similar to what occurred in the Rimac River Valley: huge Lima
settlements, in some cases with domestic areas near the pyramidal complexes. But none of the
Lima sites in the Chillon River Valley or had as many buildings as the Maranga Group.
The Wari occupation, during the Middle Horizon Period, is reduced to only a few burials
found in small cemeteries, along with small sites without monumental architecture (Silva
1996:386-389). But, it is necessary to perform extensive excavations in Lima sites like
Copacabana and La Uva in order to verify that there are Wari constructions over those Lima
pyramids as in Maranga.
Silva did not report many specimens of the Three-color Geometric style pottery in the valley.
He also presented a very basic typology, without a sequence, of the local pottery of the Late
Intermediate Period adopting the classification made by Dillehay (1976). He also mentioned
Chancay style pottery in large amounts found in various sites (Silva 1996:273, 276). During the
Late Intermediate Period monumental sites were concentrated in the lower valley in sites like
Animas Hill, near El Paraiso, and others close to the former estates of Chuquitanta, Oquendo, Pro,
and Naranjal, and a fortified hill named Collique Complex. The Colonial Period documents
mention that, unlike the Rimac River Valley, the Chillon valley was conquered by the Inca
Empire by force, and there were continuous revolts against the Inca dominion. The Incas left the
marks of their presence in the valley in walled roads, and tambos like the site named Tambo Inga
(Silva 1996:278-289).
395
Silva did not correlate the sequence of occupation and this settlement pattern with the irrigation
channels in the valley, and he did not make any specific analysis of new documental information
of the early Colonial Period, although he recognized the existence of several major and minor
channels that irrigated the agricultural fields (Silva 1996:51). He argued that the best productive
lands in the lower valley do not need complex irrigation systems because there is good water
infiltration (Silva 1996:124). For the Early Intermediate Period he did not register any channel,
although he mentioned that there should be some kind of irrigation system, maybe from the
puquios (natural water springs) that were in the valley (Silva 1996:186). During the Late
Intermediate Period agriculture combined the use of irrigation channels from the river and
puquios (Silva 1996:274). In the case of the area of investigation, except for some irrigation
channels that emerged from the “Puquios del Chivato” in the valley of La Legua Channel,
practically the whole irrigation systems was based on the Rimac River.
In the Nepeña River Valley, located 341 km NW of the Rimac, the analysis of Colonial Period
documents indicates that in the Early Colonial Period, the region was organized into moieties and
lineages, with main lords (caciques principales), secondary lords (segundas personas), and
commoners. The valley was divided into three sections: the lower and middle sections were
apparently sub-units of the same social and territorial unit or parcialidad, named Guambacho, and
the upper part, along with the Lacramarca valley, another one (Moore 1995:171). Guambacho was
headed by the main lord, but half of the parcialidad belonged to two lesser lords, named
Uraguanca and Cunaguaman, one of them his secondary lord (Moore 1995:172). Public buildings
in the valley were the municipal house, the jail, the tambo (inn), and the tavern where maize beer
(chicha) was consumed. The segunda persona was in charge of the tavern’s quipu, for accounting
purposes, but the main lord was the constable in charge of the tavern (Moore 1995:173). Although
396
political power was shared by those lords, it was unequally shared. Some lords had much more
power than others, something that was expressed, for instance, in the unequal distribution of
population. This particular situation was reflected in the settlement pattern hierarchy in the valley,
because those moieties did not have equally paired sites (Moore 1995:175). But also, this kind of
settlement pattern could be indistinguishable from those of states with a bureaucratic
administration (Moore 1995:177).
This situation has strong similarities with the political organization of the Rimac Valley for the
same period as is described in the Colonial Period documents, with tiered polities organized with
main and secondary lords that controlled different areas along with their populations.
Wilson carried out research in the Santa River Valley, located at 381 km north of the area of
investigation, with the objective of verifying Carneiro’s coercive theory for the origins of social
complexity. The occupation sequence in that valley began with Las Salinas, a Preceramic phase
with small domestic settlements forming clusters on the coast line (Wilson 1983:229). The next
phase is called Cayhuamarca with Guañape-type pottery, also known as Cupisnique Style (dated
1000-300 B.C.) coeval with the Ancon occupation in the Rimac River Valley. In this phase there
are irrigation systems with small and scattered settlements forming four big groups in the middle
and upper sections of the valley. Each group is composed of domestic sites, ceremonial and civic
buildings and citadels, implying that each group was autonomous (Wilson 1990:128-131).
Wilson argued that the Cayhuamarca settlement clusters were situated close together, and in
case of continuous conflict a chaotic situation should emerged because it was necessary harmony
and cooperation between the groups in order to keep the irrigation system working. For that
reason, a continuous conflictive situation in the area should be impossible (Wilson 1999:361-
363). The pottery from this period was similar to the valleys of the north but different from the
397
valleys to the south like Nepeña and Casma. The same situation applied for the next phases in the
Early Intermediate Period called Vinzos, Early Suchimancillo and Late Suchimancillo, identified
with the Viru pottery style and roughly coeval with Topara and Early Lima in the Central Coast.
Those societies also maintained trade relations with the communities situated in the immediate
highlands and the valleys to the north. Wilson noticed a continuous growth of the population,
which he attributed to the expansion of the agriculture and the irrigation systems from the
Cayhuamarca phase, with three hierarchical settlement tiers in the Cayhuamarca and Vinzos
phases, and four for the Early and Late Suchimancillo phases. During those times society seems to
have been chiefdom-like.
Wilson argued that during the Early Intermediate Period state societies emerged in the valley
during the Guadalupito phase, when the Moche culture expanded over the valley. There was a
radical change in the settlement pattern with a five-fold increase in population and relocation to
the lower valley (Wilson 1983:243). A main administrative site was constructed at Pampa de los
Incas, and several other large pyramidal buildings were constructed in the valley. Pottery during
this period is pretty similar to the classic Moche pottery style, with less ceramic diversity
compared with the previous phases (Wilson 1983:253; Wilson 1999:133). At the end of the
Guadalupito Phase there was a sharp decline in the population. The reasons of this drop are
unknown, but probably include warfare, relocation of population, changes in the settlement and
subsistence systems, and state-imposed systems of tribute that moved food production outside the
valley (Wilson 1983:254).
The Early Tanguche phase is the beginning of the Middle Horizon Period with the Wari
expansion in the valley. The Wari state was much more complex than Moche, because of its
multi-tier hierarchical settlement pattern and the appearance of roads, indicating ties with other
398
regions, especially with the Chao Valley River located towards the north (Wilson 1999:133).
During the Late Tanguche phase and the next phases, Early Tambo Real of the Late Intermediate
Period and Late Tambo Real, during the Late Horizon Period, there was a reduction of population
size and the settlement pattern became less complex (Wilson 1999:136). Why this situation
happened is unknown, but it could have been related with over salinization of the agricultural
fields that caused a decreased in the production, although a very late increase of the population in
the lower section of the valley could indicate some improvement (Wilson 1999:138).
In relation with Carneiro’s model about the emergence of social complexity based on inner
warfare in a single valley, Wilson argued that in the case of the Santa River Valley, although
warfare had a main role in the emergence of state societies, there was not internecine warfare in
the valley because cooperation between polities was necessary in the same section of the valley to
make it productive. But there was warfare with the valleys located to the south (Wilson 1990:131;
1999:359-364). Compared with the Rimac River Valley, there was a similar cultural sequence
based on local cultures alternating with more regional ones. But, no evidence of warfare during
the beginnings of the Early Intermediate Period has been found in the area of investigation and the
Rimac River Valley in general, such as fortified sites found in the Moche or Santa valleys. During
the Middle Lima occupation, some indirect evidence of warfare, like human trophy heads and
slings was found in the burials of, apparently, elite members of the society, but nothing more. The
idea of a more peaceful society in the Rimac Valley during the Early Intermediate Period seems to
fit the evidence better than a conflictive one.
In the Viru River Valley, situated 440 km NW of the Rimac River Valley, the first phase of
occupation was the named Cerro Prieto from the Late Preceramic Period. During this time the
settlement pattern is characterized by the presence of dwellings composed of groups of small
399
rooms made of mud-brick walls. The main site is Cerro Prieto a large and deep midden deposit
with houses over it (Willey 1953:344). In this phase the food economy was based on fishing,
cultivation and shellfish gathering along the coast (Willey 1953:390).
The next phase is Early Guañape, coeval with the first phases of the Ancon sequence on the
Central Coast. It had pretty similar dwellings to those of the previous phase. In the Middle
Guañape Phase people commenced to move inland, although the majority of the population
remained near the old fishing settlements (Willey 1953:390-391). Late Guañape sites were more
numerous and located in several parts of the Valley (Willey 1953:391). In this phase the main
type of settlement was the scattered “Small House Village”, composed of 10 to 30 dwellings
made of mud-brick walls (Willey 1953:344). There were also some rectangular constructions that
could be “Community Buildings”, and hillcrest platforms, that probably were destined as refuge
dwellings (Willey 1953:358).
The next phase was named Puerto Moorin, which is coeval with Topara and Early Lima in the
Rimac Valley. The “Irregular Agglutinated Village” is the new type of settlement with mud-brick
walls and in some cases rock-walled foundations (Willey 1953:344). In this phase there are also
shallow middens, 300 to 400 m wide, and earth refuse mounds (Willey 1953:340). There seemed
to be a continuity in the construction and use of the rectangular “Community Buildings” of the
previous period, but there are also 14 pyramidal mounds, made of earth and rocks, isolated or
forming groups as well as walled hilltop fortifications (Willey 1953:355). The Great Hilltop
Redoubt emerged in the Early Puerto Moorin Period, enclosing “Pyramid Mounds” and dwellings
(Willey 1953:358). There is also possible evidence of roads, irrigation channels and extensive
walls (Willey 1953:361).
400
In the next phase, Gallinazo, coeval with Middle Lima, there were Dwelling Construction
Mounds and Pyramid-Dwelling-Construction Complexes with several superimposed levels of
occupation and sizes from 15 to 400 m in diameter with small rectangular rooms on the top
(Willey 1953:347). There was also a continuation in the use of the pyramidal rectangular mounds
made of mud bricks and rammed earth walls. In the Late Gallinazo Period those pyramids
occurred in great sites called “Pyramid-Dwelling Construction Complexes” with buildings 25 m
high, many of them associated with dwellings. There are also “Castillo fortification” (castles) in
this period on the top of natural hills for defensive purposes (Willey 1953:355).
During the next phase named “Huancaco”, coeval with Middle and Late Lima of the Central
Coast, the Moche culture arrived to Viru. During this time the middens were extensive but
shallow and several mounds of the Gallinazo phase were reused (Willey 1953:350). There are
also Moche pyramids named Pyramid Mounds, pretty similar to those of the Gallinazo phase, but
with large rooms, corridors and courts, probably for administrative activities, along with extensive
walls scattered in the valley (Willey 1953:356). “Castillo Fortification Complexes” replaced the
redoubts characteristic of the Gallinazo phase and comprised a big pyramid and small
constructions, probably dwellings, all encircled by walls (Willey 1953:359). The irrigation
systems of Huancaco were similar to those of the Gallinazo Period, although with some
modifications. Some agricultural fields were situated 4 ½ kilometers south of the river near the
beach and were irrigated with those channels that had several distributaries (Willey 1953:365).
Tomaval is the Middle Horizon Period phase in Viru River Valley. Dwelling sites are of the
type called “Irregular Agglutinated”, with 10 to 100 or more rooms and larger than in the previous
periods. One more type of site emerged during this time the “Great Rectangular Enclosure
401
Compound”, a settlement surrounded by massive walls made of mud bricks and rammed earth on
the base (Willey 1953:350-351).
Channel irrigation systems were active in the Tomaval Period (Willey 1953:366) and due to
the existence of cultivation plots south of the Gallinazo site, there should be an irrigation channel
paralleling the Viru River with an extension of 3 kilometers (Willey 1953:367).
Based on the number and extension of the settlements, it seems that in Huancaco and Tomaval
phases the increase of population in the valley stopped. There are more Tomaval village sites than
from the previous periods, but no more monumental constructions (Willey 1953:393) and there is
only one Hilltop Agglutinated Village in this phase (Willey 1953:360).Tomaval Period Pyramid
Mounds are mostly made of rocks and mud located in the middle and high sections of the valley,
pretty similar in shape and dimensions with those from the Puerto Moorin and Huancaco phases,
and it is quite possible that many of them were reused mounds from the previous phases (Willey
1953:357).
There is no evidence that the castles built during Gallinazo and Huancaco periods were reused
during the Tomaval occupation (Willey 1953:359-360), a change that, along with the introduction
of new types of pottery and dwellings, indicates a great discontinuity with the Huancaco phase, a
change that Willey (1953:354) attributed to the Tiahuanaco invasion in the valley that is now
considered as part of the Wari expansion.
During the Late Intermediate Period, in the La Plata phase, dwelling sites include seven
“Irregular Agglutinated Villages”, one “Semi-isolated Large House”, three “Rectangular
Enclosures”, and one “Great Rectangular Enclosure” made of mud bricks and rocks. Midden or
earth refuse mounds are marginally situated in the valley (Willey 1953:351). During this phase the
valley was conquered by the Chimus from the Moche River Valley. One of the main
402
characteristics of the Chimu kingdom was urbanism, with the capital in the city of Chan Chan in
the Moche River Valley. But there is no urban settlement of this size in Viru, probably because
the amount of land during this period was not enough to support an extensive population. It is
interesting to note that in the Tomaval and La Plata periods the enclosure compounds are similar,
although much smaller, to the big rectangular enclosures of Chan Chan and other Chimu urban
centers (Willey 1953:399).
The Estero phase is the Inca expansion in the Viru River Valley during the Late Horizon
Period. Probably there was a continuation of the Tomaval-La Plata irrigation systems (Willey
1953:369). There were also short roads in the valley, some of them 5 m wide (Willey 1953:370).
For La Plata and Estero periods, combined, there were only 33 living sites and very few special
sites, located especially near the shoreline or in some of the upper ravines of the valley (Willey
1953:394).
Willey argued that establishing the dates of the extensive wall systems, irrigation channels,
agricultural fields, and roads is very problematic. It is possible that some of those, assigned to
later periods could belong to Cerro Prieto or Guañape phases, although no sites from those
periods were found close to them (Willey 1953:361).
The reconstruction of the settlement pattern in the Viru Valley is pretty similar to what was
established for the Santa River Valley. Although, no ethnohistorical analyses were made about the
political organization of the valley in relation to the irrigation system, the sequence of occupation
is similar to that of the Rimac River Valley, with the notable exception of clear fortified sites.
In the case of the Moche River Valley, located 480 km NW of the Rimac, Billman (2002)
applied Wittfogel’s main ideas about the relationship between irrigation systems and the
formation of social complexity, for the formation of the Southern Moche State. The sequence
403
postulated by Billman started in the Late Preceramic Period (2500 – 1800 BC) with villages and
monumental architecture, but without evidence of irrigation channels. For that reason, he argued
that agriculture was based on sunken gardens along the coastal plains very close to the shoreline
in order to use the underground water table, and it is also possible that farms existed on the
alluvial plains very close to the river courses (Billman 2002: 377).
Agriculture based on irrigation systems began in the valley during the Initial Period (1,800
BC), associated with the Guañape Culture. During this time, channels were very short in
extension, so their construction and management could be done by local communities with no
state level control. But irrigation channels increased food production dramatically, so the elites
obtained surplus production that allowed them to gain power and the possibility of developing
monumental constructions. In fact, a huge pyramid called Caballo Muerto, located in the fringe of
the Valley, is the main expression of changes during that time. Billman argued for emergence of
“...centralized and hierarchical political organizations” during this time (Billman 2002: 394).
Evidence of conflict between different groups that occupied the valley appeared during the
Early Intermediate Period (Salinar culture phase, known in Viru valley as “Puerto Moorin Phase”,
between 400 – 1 BC) with fortified settlements along the valley. This situation allowed the elites
to gain more power through the organization of defence, attack, and the negotiation of alliances.
This condition extended to the Gallinazo phase during the Early Intermediate Period. Then, the
Moche appeared in the valley and displaced the Gallinazo elites. Irrigation systems were
expanded with two massive channels around 400 AD, based on diagnostic Moche pottery
associated with the channels and some calibrated radiocarbon dates (Billman 2002:383). The
increased power of the Moche can also be noticed by the existence of huge pyramidal buildings
and their military expansion to adjacent valleys (Billman 2002:395).
404
Billman argued that state-level societies must have emerged during that time, due to the
magnitude of the Moche channels and the amount of work necessary for their construction. When
the hydraulic projects are huge, Billman suggested centralized leadership emerged, not only for
the construction and maintenance of the irrigation systems, but also for solving disputes about the
distribution and use of water (Billman 2002: 375-377).
Billman argued that the Moche elites were more successful than the previous ones because of
their reconquest of the Middle Moche Valley. Their leaders gained prestige and also productive
lands in the Middle Valley and more resources that could finance their monumental projects.
There was also an ideological consequence of this situation that the victorious Moche leaders
expressed in violent rituals with human sacrifice that could terrorize the neighboring populations
(Billman 1999:158-159).
This picture of the Moche as a powerful conquest state was challenged by Quilter and Koons
(2012). They pointed out that many Moche specialists argued that there is not a single Moche
pottery style identical for all the valleys where this culture expanded, but at least two different
regions: a Northern Moche and a Southern Moche (Quilter and Koons 2012:133). They also argue
that the alleged labor tax system, inferred from special marks on mud-bricks and segments in the
constructions of massive platforms that have been identified as the production of specific groups,
could be explained in other ways than social groups controlled by a state (Quilter and Koons
2012:127). Also the evidence of conflict between the Moche and other groups, especially from the
highlands, does not necessarily mean the existence of a state that organized the attack or defense
of the territory (Quilter and Koons 2012:134), and human sacrifice is found in numerous religious
systems that not are part of state societies (Quilter and Koons 2012:134).
405
Other more solid evidence of the existence of the state, like large-scale storage deposits, or the
existence of bureaucracy were ignored by those who think that Moche was a state and actually are
absent (Quilter and Koons 2012:135-136). The authors argued that polities in the Peruvian Andes
are based on localized kin groups, and as an alternative of the state model of social organization
early Colonial Period documents from the North Coast indicate the existence of:
“…of ranked and nested moieties known as parcialidades based on dualistic
organization (Netherly 1984, 1988, 1993; Ramirez 1995, 1996). This kind of
sociopolitical organization is fractal in nature so that both combining small groups
into larger entities and the fissioning of large groups into smaller ones occur
relatively easily because the basic organizational structure is replicated at all scales.
While we cannot be sure that this system was in operation seven or more centuries
prior to the era of the Colonial documentation, we suggest that it is a better model
than abstract notions of the state” (Quilter and Koons 2012:137).
The main Moche sites, defined by the presence of huge pyramidal constructions, were located
at the end of the irrigation systems and not at the inlets, and this means that they could controlled
the middle section of the valleys from the lower sections, maintaining alliances with other main
huaca settlements, even in different valleys. It is also possible that the main huacas controlled
smaller ones in one or more valleys (Quilter and Koons 2012:136-137). Instead of an expansive
state, Quilter and Koons suggest that Moche could be a religious system spread on the Peruvian
North Coast, a local creation that emerged first in the Moche Valley that lasted until 900 Cal AD
when the Moche tradition finally disappeared (Quilter and Koons 2012:138).
406
This assertion is very important because if a society with clear social stratification and possible
urban sites could be questionable as a state, Lima with less clear evidence of that should also be
questioned. The alleged urban settlement located between the Sun and Moon huacas of Moche has
an extension of 0.16 km² and has a lined up layout with two main streets with evidence of
artisanal production and dwellings (Chapdelaine 2002). The possible urban area in Maranga near
Huaca 20 (M-82) is less than 0.04 km² and does not have a lined up layout. It appears to be only a
concentration of small rectangular and circular rooms. And Moche lord burials, like Sipan, are
much more complex than probable elite burials in Maranga.
Netherly (1984) based on historical information from the XVI and XVII centuries, classified
the Prehispanic irrigation channels of the Peruvian North Coast into three types taking into
consideration their use and maintenance:
1. Single Polity Canals are small canals probably used and kept exclusively by a single human
group (called during the Colonial Period as “parcialidad”) in a specific area of the valley. Some
channels of the Chicama and Viru valleys in the Peruvian North Coast belong to this group. It is
very interesting that in many cases the name of the channel is the same as the human group
(Netherly 1984:237).
2. Multi-Polity Canals are not necessarily larger than the channels of the first group, but their
principal characteristic is that they were used and shared by two or more human groups. Netherly
notices this situation in Pacasmayo, Jequetepeque, Chancay and Lambayeque valleys in the North
Coast, although it could be a distortion during the Inca and Spanish conquest of the area of
previous forms of organization (Netherly 1984:239).
3. Intervalley Canals are big channels connecting one river system to another. There are two
categories: the first is composed of canals that carried water from one river to another valley, but
407
shared waters in both valleys. For example, the Taymi canal in the Lambayeque Valley moves
waters from the Chancay River to agricultural fields located in the La Leche Valley after sharing
water in the Chancay Valley. The second category is composed of a single channel called
“Chicama-Moche”, designed to transfer water from the Chicama River to an arid part of the
Moche Valley called Vinchansao, located very close to the north section of Chan Chan, the capital
city of the Chimu Empire (Netherly 1984:239). It also could supplement water to other areas like
Pampa El Milagro and to the Pampa Cerro de la Virgen. This channel is not working anymore and
several studies were done in order to understand when it was abandoned and why. And this is a
very interesting case that shows how irrigation systems were made and maintained on the
Peruvian Coast.
Susan Ramirez (1996) analysed the political organization of the Lambayeque River Valley
situated 680 km NW of the Rimac River. She found that the Early Colonial Period indigenous
lords controlled thousands of people along with their lands. They had power over the life and
death of their subjects if committed crimes (Ramirez 1996:13) and the irrigation waters belonged
also to the lord, along with dry lands, pastures, forests and other resources (Ramírez 1996:16-17).
This control over the water gave the lords jurisdiction over irrigated agricultural lands and the
products obtained. They entrusted those lands to lesser lords, who entrusted them to other lesser
lords, until it reached individual heads of households (Ramirez 1996:18).
Other ethnohistorical investigations show that this kind of organization was common in the
Central Andes during the Late Horizon Period, for instance, Pampa de Chaparri, located in the
Lambayeque Valley that was irrigated by two main channels called Taymi and the Racarumi
(Hayashida 2006:246). In this area around 5,600 ha of ancient cultivated fields are visible in aerial
photographs (Hayashida 2006: 248), although nowadays all of those lands are abandoned.
408
Ethnohistorical investigations show that the channels were locally administrated by small
communities, but the agricultural production of this area was of great interest for states like Sican,
Chimu and Inca. The survey of the Pampa shows that the first settlements belonged to the middle
Sican phase and the construction of the channels must have been during this period. During the
Chimu and Inca occupations, new settlements appeared in the Pampa, and this was the time of the
main use of the channels. Following the parcialidades model developed by Netherly (1984),
Hayashida argues that during the Chimu and Inca control of the Pampa, segmentary organizations
managed the canals, dividing the area into small sections, each one controlled by one of those
groups. This model was a more effective way to manage the channels and waters and centralized
bureaucratic organization was not necessary (Hayashida 2006:257).
South of the area of investigation, in the Lurin River Valley, 33 km SE of the Rimac River, the
Colonial Period documents mentioned the existence of a three-tier organization of the political
power: one main lord for the Ychsma polity and secondary lords for the three sub-political units
(parcialidades) named Caringas, Anan Ychsma and Hurin Ychsma, and more lesser lords in each
one of the main settlements of each parcialidad. Each unit, from the main parcialidad to each one
of the settlements, had two lords. But the lords of each unit did not have the same rank, and one of
them commanded the other. Leadership was transmitted from one generation to the next one, with
political, economic and judicial power but without religious leadership (Eeckhout 2008:227). This
situation is interpreted as that religiosity was separated from the other secular aspects of the
society. Spaniards repressed the religious traditions of those communities, but they kept the other
secular customs as a way to control the local population. Four ayllus or communities composed
the Ychsma polity: Pachacamac, Manchay, Caringas, and Quilcaycunas, the former mitmacunas
409
moved to that territory and were not under the control of the local lords; they answered directly to
the Inca authority (Eeckhout 2008:229).
The leadership was organized in principles of hierarchy and duality, with segments divided
into moieties, where one of them commanded the other (Eeckhout 2008:230). The settlement
pattern from the late periods showed this situation. Pachacamac was the main site and had twice
the area of Pampa de las Flores, the second largest site in the valley. Panquilma and Huaycan had
less than a half of the surface of Pampa de las Flores. Tijerales and Molle were in the third place,
Chontay and Rio Seco, in the fourth place, and finally very small sites that could be villages. In
this case, Pachacamac may have belonged to the main Ychsma lord, while Panquilma and
Huaycan to two different secondary lords, and Molle, Rio Seco and Chontay to even lesser lords,
with the villages distributed among the different lords depending on their tier of power (Eeckhout
2008:230-231).
In the Nasca Rio Grande drainage, 352 km SE of the Rimac River Valley, the reconstruction of
the settlement pattern begins with the phases Nasca 2, 3, and 4, in the Early Intermediate Period,
coeval with Topara in the Rimac River Valley. The main site in the drainage was Cahuachi, a
ceremonial settlement composed of several pyramids, courts, and other architectonic units, while
the population lived in villages distributed in the valleys close to reliable water resources
(Schreiber 1999:167). During Late Nasca (Nasca 6 and 7), coeval with Middle Lima (phases 4-6),
architectonic remodeling in Cahuachi ceased, and the small villages moved into very large
settlements, that used filtration galleries for irrigation. Those changes could indicate local warfare
due to the existence of several small polities and not a centralized state (Schreiber 1999:168).
In the Middle Horizon Period, during the Wari occupation of the drainage, there was,
apparently, a decrease in population size. There were only small villages situated in defensive
410
locations. The largest site was “Huaca del Loro”, probably the center of the local settlement
hierarchy (Schreiber 1999:168). Another Wari site was Pacheco where a very important offering
of smashed decorated big vessels was found in the 1930’s. Although the site was destroyed, it
could have had administrative purposes. Pataraya is another Wari site situated in the upper section
of the drainage associated with pottery of the Middle Horizon Epoch 2 (Schreiber 1999:169).
Helaine Silverman also worked in the Nasca Rio Grande drainage and arrived at similar
conclusions. She argued that, although several scholars considered Nasca to be a chiefdom or
state based on the craft specialization with fine and highly decorated pottery, and the existence of
Cahuachi, a huge monumental settlement that was labeled as urban, she preferred not to use those
neo-evolutionary terms because they “…are uninteresting, counterproductive, and inaccurate”
(Silverman 2002:160). Instead of that, she used the concept of inequality for the analysis of
increasing complexity over time (Silverman 2002:160).
Silverman argued that Cahuachi was an empty ceremonial site that was occupied only during
pilgrimage times based on a ritual calendar. During those times the constructions were remodeled
and huge amounts of food, pottery, textiles and other items were consumed (Silverman 2002:165).
No evidence of residential population has been found in Cahuachi, so it seems that people lived in
many scattered centers throughout the valley, with “Site 165” as the largest and complex
residential site (Silverman 2002:165). Pyramids in Cahuachi could be “provincial temples”, built
by local groups for their specific religious activities, and the differences in size are related with
the importance and size of those groups (Silverman 2002:166). Because there is no mortuary
differentiation or iconography that represents elites, Early Nasca Society fits the concept of a
chiefdom, a segmentary and not a centralized society with its main cult center in Cahuachi
(Silverman 2002:166). In Nasca Phase 4, Cahuachi and the habitation sites declined. This
411
situation could be produced by tensions among the groups seeking to achieve individual power
that (Silverman 2002:167), also could have been influenced by the Wari expansion. In Nasca 5, at
the end of the Early Intermediate Period, constructions in Cahauachi were minimal and the site
became a cemetery (Silverman 2002:167). The differentiation in settlement patterns between the
valleys of the drainage could be a consequence of the existence of competitive elite personages
that wanted power and controlled specific regions. In Loro Phase times, at the beginning of the
Middle Horizon Period, no more habitation sites were built and the only buildings that existed in
the drainage, like Huaca del Loro, Tres Palos, and Estaqueria, were ceremonial. In this phase
there were also ritual offerings and burials in Cahuachi, and the pottery style was strongly
different from the previous Nasca tradition (Silverman 2002:171).
The model of Nasca, as a ranked society, was also shared by Carmichael (1995), who argued,
based on funerary patterns, the absence of social stratification in Nasca society, something that is
characteristic in state-level and complex chiefdom societies, although he said that if extremely
rich tombs could be found, this idea must change (Charmichael 1995:179) Other characteristics of
Nasca, like the absence of evidence of full-time specialists, and less impressive monumental
buildings compared with those of the Peruvian Central and North coasts support the idea of Nasca
as a non-state society (Carmichael 1995:180) .
This image of Nasca as a non-state society given by Carmichael and Silverman has been
challenged by Reindel and Isla (2006). They claim to have identified various Nasca settlements
with urban characteristics. Two of those sites were studied: Los Molinos, from Early Nasca, and
La Muña from Middle Nasca, that could be the administrative centers of their periods. In La
Muña they found several tombs with different treatments, including some rich ones put in deep
rectangular chambers with fine pottery and gold and spondylus shell ornaments, proving that
412
Nasca was socially stratified with a group clearly differentiated from the rest (Reindel and Isla
2006:393). Survey in the Nazca Rio Grande drainage shows differences in settlement ranking,
with hamlets, habitation sites with “special building”, and few major settlements that indicated a
settlement hierarchy of two or three tiers (Reindel and Isla 2006:394), but it is necessary to carry
out more excavations, especially in the peripheral areas around the main pyramidal construction
in Cahuachi, in order to discard the existence of the houses of a permanent population in the site
(Reindel and Isla 2006:395).
413
N
80 85
70 90
8669 65 95
55
25 100 110
30
105 115
140
55
50 145
40
150
45
35
80
120
5
120
40 135
8668 85
80
70
35 50 65
55 80
50
30
25
20 45
105
125
115 120
30
10 110
70
8667 40
95
145
15
25
30
20
100
40
80 150
130
50
15 55
10 60 65 120
65 70
25 135
35
45
20 35
5
30
8666
135
10
115
15
20 40
5
80 110
60
70 125
5 30 100
45 60
5 20
8665 10
70
25 50
15 35
40
20 25 50
278 279
80
35
5 65 85
40
30 100
45
40
8664
40
45 55
60
80
40
45 50
55
8663
60
55
80
8662 65
60
80
80
86615 km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 8-1. Identified Ancon sites in the area of investigation

414
N
80 85
70 90 95
8669 65
25 55
100 110
30
105 115
140
55
50 145
40
150
45
35
80
120
5
120
40
135
8668 85
80
70
35 65
50
55 80
30 50
25
20 45
105
125
115 120
30
10 110
70
8667 40
95
145
15 25
30
20
100
40
80 150
130
50
15
55
10 60 65 120
65 70
25 135
35
45
20 35
5
30
8666
135
10
115
15
20 40
5
80 110
60
70 125
5 30 100
45 60
5 20
8665 10
70
50
25 35
15
40
20 25 50
278 279
80
35
5 65 85
40
30 100
45
40
8664
40
45 55
60
80
40
45 50
55
8663
60
55
80
8662 65
60
80
80
86615 km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 8-2. Identified Topara site in the area of investigation

415
N
80 85
70 90 95
8669 65
25 55
100 110
30
105 115
140
55
50 145
40
150
45
35
80
120
5
120
40
135
8668 85
80
70
35 50 65
55 80
50
30
25
20 45
105
125
115 120
30
10 110
70
8667 40
95
145
15 25
30
20
100
40
80 150
130
50
15
55
60 65 120
10 65 70
25 135
35
45
20 35
5
30
8666
135
10
115
15
20 40
5
80 110
60
70 125
5 30 100
45 60
5 20
8665 10
70
50
25 35
15
40
20 25 50
278 279
80
35
5 65 85
40
30 100
45
40
8664
40
45 55
60
80
40
45 50
55
8663
60
55
80
8662 65
60
80
80
86615 km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 8-3. Identified Lima sites in the area of investigation

416
N
80 85
70 90 95
8669 65
25 55
100 110
30
105 115
140
55
50 145
40
150
45
35
80
120
5
120
40
135
8668 85
80
70
35 50 65
55 80
50
30
25
20 45
105
125
115 120
30
10 110
70
8667 40
95
145
15
25
30
20
100
40
80 150
130
50
15
55
60 65 120
10 65 70
25 135
35
45
20 35
5
30
8666
135
10
115
15
20 40
5
80 110
60
70
125
5 30 100
45 60
5 20
8665 10
70
25 50
15 35
40
20 25 50
278 279
80
35
5 65 85
40
30 100
45
40
8664
40
45
55
60
80
40
45 50
55
8663
60
55
80
8662 65
60
80
80
86615 km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 8-4. Identified Wari sites in the area of investigation

417
N
80 85
70 90 95
8669 65
25 55
100 110
30
105 115
140
55
50 145
40
150
45
35
80
120
5
120
40
135
8668 85
80
70
35 50 65
55 80
30 50
25
20 45
105
125
115 120
30
10 110
70
8667 40
95
145
15 25
30
20
100
40
80 150
50 130
15
55
60 65 120
10 65 70
25 135
35
45
20 35
5
30
8666
135
10
115
15
20 40
5
80 110
60
70 125
5 30 100
45 60
5 20
8665 10
70
25 50
15 35
40
20 25 50
278 279
80
35
5 65 85
40
30 100
45
40
8664
40
45
55
60
80
40
45 50
55
8663
60
55
80
8662 65
60
80
80
86615 km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 8-5. Identified Ychsma and Inca sites in the area of investigation
418
Chapter 9
Conclusions
On the southwestern side of the Rimac River Valley there were three irrigation channels
known since Colonial times as La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua, forming along with their
secondary, and tertiary channels, and reservoirs, three artificial valleys that received the same
names. Those names were given due to the places where they headed: the town of La Magdalena,
the town of La Legua and the estate of Maranga. Other channels were located in other parts of the
valley on the north and south sides of the river, forming other wide artificial valleys like Huatica
situated immediately eastward of the area of investigation.
Those channels carried water to places where agriculture would have been impossible without
them. The territory is a desert with very little precipitation and the only reliable water source is
the Rimac River. Therefore, these irrigation systems allowed agricultural expansion in the area.
La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua channels emerged from a single mother channel
that had two inlets on the Rimac River named in Colonial times Santa Rosa and Santo Domingo.
This channel was known as “Common Channel” and had an extension of 2.4 km with several
secondary and tertiary channels. The valley that formed was 0.7 km², although no archaeological
sites were detected there. La Magdalena Channel had an extension of 7 km, with 7 secondary
channels, several tertiary channels and four reservoirs. The valley that formed had an extension of
7.8 km² and 77 archaeological sites were detected there. Maranga Channel had an extension of 5.7
km with 6 secondary channels, several tertiary channels, and 2 reservoirs. The valley that formed
had an area of 13 km² and 172 archaeological sites were detected there. La Legua Channel had an
extension of 4.1 km with 12 secondary channels, several tertiary channels and 1 reservoir. The
419
valley that formed had an area of 30 km². In La Legua Valley was a swamp named “Chivato”,
originated by water filtrations from the Rimac River and discharges of La Legua secondary
channels. It was used also to increase the area of cultivation and human habitation, especially
around Callao Port.
The research also verified a dense Pre-colonial human occupation of the area. Although,
population estimates would be very speculative, this research proved the existence of numerous
archaeological settlements, from large concentrations of pyramidal buildings, to a series of minor
buildings, isolated or forming small groups and very simple rural settlements without monumental
architecture.
Hypothesis 1 formulated the absence of Late Preceramic settlements in the area of
investigation, in contrast to El Paraiso in the Chillón River Valley, or Caral in the Supe River
Valley. This hypothesis was formulated because nowadays there are no buildings from that period
in the area, and because there was no reference about their existence in the bibliography. The
analysis of aerial photos of the area from 1944 confirms this hypothesis, unless those buildings
had disappeared with the agricultural and urban expansion before the 1940's. However, that
situation is unlikely because, if there have been massive and numerous buildings of that period, as
in the Supe Valley, all should been destroyed without leaving any trace. In addition, there are no
records of this type of building in the coastal valleys south of the Rimac River. Obviously, this
does not mean that the area of investigation was completely depopulated, but there is no known
evidence so far from this period. It is also unknown why monumental architecture of this period
does not exist on the Peruvian coast south of the Rimac River.
420
The systems of irrigation in the research area go back in time at least to the first half of the
Early Horizon Period (800-600 BC). This assertion is based on the fact that the earliest analyzed
pottery from Huaca Santa Rosa and the collection published from Huaca Pacific Fair are related to
phases VI-VII of the Ancon pottery style. Hypothesis 2 proposed that the irrigation channels
could have first been built during the Initial Period, because the bibliographic information
reported the existence of the Ancon pottery style in the area. But this assertion was inexact
because all the analyzed collections indicate the presence of Ancon ceramics from the Early
Horizon Period. Again, the existence of prior occupations in the area cannot be dismissed entirely,
but there is still no information on the matter. The evidence confirms the existence of irrigation
channels during the Early Horizon Period because the Ancon sites are located far from the Rimac
River, and because their structures follow the orientation of the channels visible in the aerial
photos of the area. But it is impossible for the moment to known if those channels were La Legua
and Maranga or others that existed previously and were covered by silt during the irrigation
activities of posterior periods. There is also no secure evidence to argue about the existence of La
Legua Channel during this period, although one Ancon sherd was found in Huaca 9 in the La
Legua Valley in the removed architectonic fills of a Late Lima structure.
Something that could be concluded from the investigations carried out on the Central Coast is
that during the Ancon occupation urban centers did not exist, and the members of the society were
not strongly differentiated. Settlements are limited to small villages in the shape of mounds and
the pyramidal U-shaped buildings distributed throughout the valleys of the Central Coast.
The U-shaped buildings had only ceremonial purposes and did not form the nuclei of urban
settlements. Of course there must have been a ruling social group, located at the top of the social
hierarchy, but as Burger (2009:20) has pointed out, the burials of main personages placed in the
421
U-shaped building of Cardal in the Lurín River Valley are characterized by their extreme
simplicity, without complex funerary offerings, which implies that these personages were not very
distant from the rest of the population. For this reason, Burger (2009) postulated the existence,
during this time, of societies weakly stratified with complex religious systems that included the
construction and constant renovation of the temples.
This assertion is very important because the absence of cities and social classes means that the
existence of state or despotic leaders who ordered and organized the construction and
maintenance of irrigation systems is unlikely, at least in the valleys of the Central Coast of Peru.
On the other hand, the heterarchy model, as was applied by Burger (2009) for the Central Coast
during this period, with political units distributed throughout the valleys where none of them
exercised control over the others, seems to be the most successful model to explain the political
situation in the Central Coast during the Ancon occupation.
The fact that Janabarriu ceramics appear on the Central Coast (though not in the research area)
refers to the ideas of the Chavin expansion during the Early Horizon Period. However, not much
is known yet about the nature of that expansion. The abandonment of the ancient U-shaped
buildings during this time has been postulated (Burger 1992), but this assertion still deserves
further investigation since it is clear that while some of them were abandoned, others like Garagay
on the northern side of the Rimac River still survived.
Between the end of the Early Horizon Period and the beginning of the Early Intermediate
Period the Rimac River Valley was absorbed by the Topara expansion from the Peruvian South
Coast (400 BC – 300 AD). There are local variants that are expressed in the multitude of names
that this style received in Lima by several authors. With the exception of Huaca Huallamarca, in
422
the Valley of the Huatica Channel, there is no other evidence of similar monumental architecture
in the Rímac River Valley, unless those buildings of tooth-shaped mud-bricks detected by Jijón
(1949) in the bottom of his excavation in Huaca Middendorf belong to this period, but this is
unconfirmed. This partially confirms the proposition in Hypothesis 3 that there was an occupation
at the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period in the area, although, so far, the only clear
evidence of that is some double-spout-and-bridge bottles found near Huaca La Palma in Maranga
Channel Valley.
The burials in “Tablada de Lurin”, south of the Valley of the Rímac River, during this period,
reveal the existence of more complexity in the funerary offerings than those associated with the
Ancon occupation, especially by the introduction of elaborate metal objects. Could this social
differentiation be caused by a more complex and expansive society? Further investigations are
necessary for a better understanding of this situation and why the people of the Central Coast
began to imitate the pottery produced on the South Coast.
During the Lima occupation of the Central Coast, from the second half of the Early
Intermediate Period to Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon Period (AD 550-800), there was a massive
occupation of the area of investigation with the construction of buildings of varying dimensions,
especially in Maranga and Makatampu groups. The most common architectonic type used small
cubic mud bricks in "Technique D”. The analysis of pottery collections associated with this
architecture in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu indicates the middle stages of the Lima
pottery style (phases 4 to 6 in the Patterson sequence) and not the first phases of the style, as was
postulated in the Hypothesis 4. In fact, there is no evidence so far of occupations in the area of
investigation corresponding to the first phases of the Lima style.
423
Lima settlements were very complex and Maranga was the biggest site with the greatest
number of pyramidal buildings on the Central Coast. The differences in size and complexity
between Lima settlements could be a consequence of hierarchy among Lima social groups, in the
same way that was argued by Silverman (2002) for Cahuachi in the Rio Grande Nasca drainage.
Hypothesis 4 proposed the existence of Lima buildings associated with small mud bricks in
technique D in the area of investigation and was confirmed for the La Legua and Maranga valley
channels. It is possible that the La Magdalena Channel also existed during this time, given its
association with Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa where a Middle Lima occupation was detected through
the pottery analysis of the site and architecture made of cubic Lima mud bricks that was reported
in the site (Ravines 1985).
If clear evidence of areas of permanent residence, storage and artisanal production among or
around the pyramids was not found, or was limited to only certain sections close to some
buildings, then the large Lima settlements would be more ceremonial than urban sites, which, so
far, best fits the available evidence. This would deny, in part, Hypothesis 5, which considered as
urban, the large Lima settlements from Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon Period, with buildings
made of small mud bricks in technique C associated with Late Lima and Nieveria pottery styles.
The existence of one polity for each irrigation channel cannot be verified for each of the La
Legua, Maranga and La Magdalena valleys. Actually, during the Lima occupation, the Maranga
Group was irrigated by waters from the La Legua and Maranga channels.
Elite Lima burials discovered so far in different sites of the Central Coast are even simpler than
elite Topara burials from Tablada of Lurin. For instance, in Tablada de Lurin there are metal
ornaments that are absent in Lima burials. Why this should be is unknown, although one reason
424
could be the fragmentation of power with elites that controlled only limited sections of the valleys
without despotic power or marked social stratification.
Unlike what was argued (Shimada et al. 1991; Segura and Shimada 2010:126), the Maranga
Group continued to function during Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period during the Wari
expansion on the Central Coast (AD 800-1000), in a time of continuous and complex architectural
renovations, when the buildings reached their dimensions with the use of small mud bricks in
technique B, large adobe bricks and rammed earth walls. Hypotheses 6 raised this on the basis of
the information available (Jijón 1949; Alarcón 1971; Narváez 2000; Shady et al. 2000). The full
pottery analysis from the Western Passage of Platform 2 in Huaca Aramburu verified the
association of this architecture with Wari and Nieveria pottery styles. On the other hand, there is
no evidence of clear interactions with the South Coast and very limited evidence of contact with
the North Coast during this time. The absence of Wari pottery in other collections analyzed and
published of the Valley confirms hypothesis 6 in the sense that Maranga was the most important
settlement of the time.
The existence of an imperial organization during the Middle Horizon with its main center in
Ayacucho in the southern highlands was postulated from the 1940s (Isbell 1977, 2010; Larco
1948, Lumbreras 1969, 1974; Menzel 1964; Schreiber 1992, 2013). In the case of Maranga
Group, there was continuity in the use of the large Lima buildings, and the Wari architecture there
is much more similar to the previous Lima architecture than to the Ayacuchean architecture. This
could be explained by the elites of Lima being linked to Wari elites in a situation of dependency
that led them to use artifacts similar to those from Ayacucho, while retaining previous cultural
patterns such as architecture. Burials are more complex than in previous periods, with funerary
bundles incorporating ceramics and fine fabrics, ornaments made of sea shells and elaborate
425
funerary masks. Although none of these have been found in the area of investigation, they were
found in other sites on the Central Coast such as Ancon, Pucllana and Pachacamac. This situation
reveals more social differentiation in Wari times than in the previous periods.
During the transition between the Wari and Ychsma occupations, i.e., between the Middle
Horizon and the Late Intermediate periods, around AD 1000, some authors have proposed an
abandonment of the Rimac River Valley or at least a reduction in the size of the population.
Actually, it seems that the Wari occupation was followed immediately by the Ychsma occupation
with Early Ychsma and Three-color Geometric styles found in abundance in the Rimac River
Valley. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 that posed a possible reduction in the number of inhabitants in
the area lost support, although it was confirmed that at the end of the Wari occupation the old
Lima buildings were abandoned. There is no certainty if the late buildings made of rammed earth
walls in Maranga and Mateo Salado groups began to be built at this time, but it is quite possible.
During the Late Intermediate and Late Horizon periods, the Rimac River Valley was occupied
by a society known archaeologically and etnohistorically by the name of Ychsma. The Ychsma
pottery style has been found in the Chillón, Rímac, Lurín and Chilca coastal valleys. The Ychsma
buildings were made mainly with rammed earth walls, forming large and small pyramids, and
enclosures. There were simpler rural settlements as well. There was no renovation of the great
pyramids of the Lima occupation and new ones were raised in other sections of the Valley or over
small Lima buildings. The south section of Maranga, Makatampu and Mateo Salado groups began
to be occupied in this period confirming Hypothesis 8. However, just as happened with large
Lima settlements, the urban nature of those establishments cannot be confirmed. Given the
available evidence, it is more probable that those huge Ychsma settlements were not urban sites
and, instead, ceremonial places and residences of the elites.
426
During the Late Horizon Period, between AD 1476 and 1532, the area of investigation was
incorporated into the Tawantinsuyu Empire. However, it is important to emphasize the fact that
contrary to what happened during the Wari occupation in Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period,
during the Late Horizon Period, artifacts related to the Inca expansion are very rare in the area of
investigation. Actually, the Inca presence is much less apparent than the earlier Wari presence in
the La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua channel valleys. Hypothesis 9 asserted the existence
of three urban settlements in the area of investigation: Maranga, Mateo Salado and Makatampu
for this period. However there is no evidence that these sites became urban under the Incan
influence. The research also confirmed that sites such as Huaca Huantille, and probably Huaca
Chacra Puente, also had Late Horizon Period occupations. However, the idea that there was a late
architectural group in Lima Downtown area, within the Huatica Channel Valley, was discarded.
The hypothesis also posed, following Rostworowski’s assertions, that three polities (“señorios”
as she called them) were located in the area of investigation: Lima, along the La Magdalena
Channel, Maranga, along the Maranga Channel, and a third one of unknown of name around the
La Legua Channel. However, the analysis of the distribution of settlements and Colonial Period
information does not support the idea of a settlement by each main irrigation channel. The pattern
of distribution of the ancient Ychsma polities seems not to follow a specific channel, but
territories in specific areas of the Rimac River Valley were irrigated with waters from different
channels.
When the Pre-colonial polities of the Rimac River Valley are compared with the classic
definitions of tribe, chiefdom, and state, it is clear that those societies over time do not fit exactly
into those terms. In the Ancon occupation, during the Initial and Early Horizon periods, the lack
of social hierarchy in burials is closer to the classic definition of “tribes” or “rank societies”, but
427
the existence of huge ceremonial pyramidal centers along with simple rural settlements seems to
be closer to the definition of a simple chiefdom. During the beginning of the Early Intermediate
Period with the Topara occupation, there was more social differentiation, based on the burials.
The pattern again resembles simple chiefdoms, which is coherent with the existence of at least
one monumental building, the Huaca Huallamarca in the Huatica Channel Valley.
For Lima society, between the Early Intermediate Period and Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon
Period, the settlement pattern resembles that of complex chiefdoms, with a three tier settlement
hierarchy, with Maranga as the main site, a second tier with Makatampu or Pucllana, and a third
tier with small settlements and rural sites like the Lima occupation of Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
But, based on the Lima burials discovered in Maranga and other sites, the society was not highly
differentiated, and this resembles tribal or simple chiefdom-like societies. So far, the available
evidence does not support the existence of urban settlements with massive populations inhabiting
the huge Lima monumental centers. This situation is pretty similar to what happened during the
Ychsma occupation of the Late Intermediate Period.
The Early Colonial Period information and the comparison with what happened in other
valleys of the Peruvian coast, indicates that instead of a vertical bureaucracy controlling different
aspects of society, power was applied through local lords whose dominions were exerted at
various levels based on the number of people and amount of land that was under their commands.
There would be a main lord who controlled one or more natural valley along with its inhabitants,
who was followed in the tier of power, by secondary lords who controlled a section of the valley
irrigated by one or more main channel, followed by each one of the lesser lords that controlled the
smallest groups in specific territories. The Early Colonial Period image of a main lord in
Pachacamac, followed by two lords in Lima who shared the polity, followed by other lords who
428
controlled smaller population groups, could be the way in which society was organized in the Pre-
colonial Peruvian Coast since very ancient times. This form of social organization fits in a much
better way, as was also argued by Quilter and Koons (2012) for Moche in the Peruvian North
Coast, to what happened in Lima, during the Early Intermediate Period and Epoch 1 of the Middle
Horizon Period and Ychsma during the Late Intermediate Period.
It seems that only in two periods was the Central Coast incorporated into two expansive states
of imperial characteristics: the Wari and the Inca. But, there are several differences between the
dominions of both states in the area. This situation could be explained in the way that the valley
was incorporated to both empires. In the case of the Wari, the fact that the huge Late Lima
settlements, with the exception of Maranga, were abandoned at the beginning of the Wari
occupation could be a consequence of a very conflictive incorporation of the Central Coast to the
Wari dominion with the eradication of the major elites, causing the abandonment of the main sites
and the concentration of the power in Maranga. This could explain also why there is a very
important presence of Wari pottery in the area of investigation, perhaps as a way to reinforce the
Wari dominion in the area. In the case of the Incas Early Colonial documents indicate that the
Central Coast was conquered peacefully. Probably, the Incas found in the local elites several
collaborators, so they did not make major changes in the political organization and the main Late
Ychsma sites instead of be abandoned were heavily remodeled. That could explain also why Inca
pottery was very rare in the area.
As the mosaic model of Andean imperialism explains (Schreiber 1992), the dominion of an
empire over a vast territory is not the same everywhere. In some areas, the empire could have
found more resistance, making reorganization of the territory necessary. In others, with more
collaborative populations, the changes in the political organization and the settlement pattern were
429
minimal. In some areas imperial iconography and other cultural traits were more evident than in
others. This situation is evidenced in the archeological record, as could be seen in the Rimac
River Valley during the Middle and Late Horizon periods.
Although more excavations are necessary in the archaeological sites situated in the
Peruvian Central Coast in order to define the type of settlements and the social organization in
Pre-colonial times, what we know so far does not necessarily match the classic definitions of
band, tribe, chiefdom, and state established by evolutionary anthropology, nor did the social
development follow those types as steps in a ladder. Instead of trying to put those societies in one
specific cultural evolutionary category, as many archaeologists have been doing, it is necessary to
study the characteristics of those societies in their own terms, trying to find much better
descriptive models that do not necessarily have to coincide with those of evolutionary cultural
anthropology. This investigation is a first attempt to define some of those characteristics based on
the sequence of occupation and settlement pattern in each period.
Another important conclusion is that the irrigation systems emerged in the valley in a context
of societies without social classes or urban settlements, in other words, not in complex chiefdoms
or state-like societies. And the emergence of those systems neither originated state societies in the
area, because Topara and Lima seem to be more similar to chiefdoms than to states. But the
irrigation systems were very important in the organization of the settlement pattern in the valley in
all the periods of occupation. The buildings follow the same orientation as the channels, and
considering that the channels should be oriented according to the natural relief of the terrain in
order to allow the movement of the water by gravity, it is possible to conclude that the settlements
were built before or during the construction of the channels.
430
Although irrigation systems could be efficiently controlled by a bureaucratic administration,
like those that exist in state societies, the evidence in the Peruvian Central Coast shows that the
social organization based on a vertical tier of lords with different access to power did the same. In
this sense, the ethnographic information recovered by Mitchell in Ayacucho indicates that even in
modern times the main decisions in the administration of the irrigation channels are based on
communal officials and communal customs, instead of a bureaucratic organization with specialists
in irrigation. Finally, evidence of warfare in the Rimac River Valley is so scarce, that its role in
the emergence of social complexity, against Carneiro’s hypothesis, was not of much importance.
The complexity of the societies that existed during Pre-colonial times in the Rimac River
Valley is expressed in the existence of monumental architecture, with huge pyramids, some of
them concentrated in certain parts, forming complex and large settlements, in the existence of
irrigation systems that covered several kilometers augmenting the available agricultural fields in
the valley, and by the existence of a hierarchical system in the settlement pattern and in the
exercise of power. And, as far as we know, it is clear that through time, the numbers and
dimensions of the settlements were increasing, which could be related to population growth. But
why did societies on the Central Coast develop those characteristics? Why did they not remain as
simple communities dedicated to marine exploitation and simple agriculture in an arid
environment?
Probably this was the product of several factors in combination. The existence of an extensive
alluvial plain that could be highly productive with the construction of irrigation systems could be
the main cause. Once the artificial valleys emerged, populations could have grown through time
based on increasing local agriculture production complemented by the existence of very rich food
resources in the Pacific Ocean. The existence of several different ecosystems in the vicinity
431
stratified at successively higher elevations along the western slopes of the highlands, with their
own products and human adaptations could be another factor for the development of social
complexity through the exchange of products, different knowledge and even competition between
elites and communities.
But also, in the Rimac River Valley there was no emergence of an original state level society.
Social differentiation was very weak, especially during the Ancon, Topara, Lima and Ychsma
occupations, compared with the Moche and Chimu societies on the North Coast, expressed, for
instance, in very complex and highly differentiated burial patterns. In spite of the huge Ancon,
Lima and Ychsma pyramids, there were no real cities on the Central Coast that concentrated large
populations dedicated to the production of goods and services. Actually the best candidates for
urban centers in the area, like Pachacamac, Cajamarquilla and Armatambo are very late, a product
of the Inca expansion (Makowski 2008:648), and very small compared with other urban
settlements in the Americas. There was not a Late Preceramic development of monumental
architecture in the Rimac River Valley as in the northward valleys; nor did it produce any
complex and expansive polity that conquered a wide territory outside the Central Coast. Instead of
that, the Central Coast was always absorbed by more powerful and expansive polities, especially
from the highlands.
One main reason for this situation could have been the physical limitations in the expansion of
cultivable lands, even with the irrigation systems. In the west the Pacific Ocean is a natural
barrier; in the north the Rimac Valley formed a continuity with the Chillon River Valley but to the
south the arid areas of Tablada de Lurin that divide the Rimac River Valley with the Lurin River
Valley was another limitation; and, to the east, the mountains located close to the shoreline
formed another barrier. This scarcity of lands could have slowed the expansion of food production
432
and population growth. Finally, in this context, in an area where the construction and maintenance
of complex irrigation systems need the cooperation of several groups along the valley, as Wilson
(1999) argued for the Santa River Valley, the existence of a hierarchical social and political
organization that functions very well could avoid the emergence of a bureaucratic state, along
with social classes and cities.
433
Bibliography
Abanto, Julio
1994 El Triunfo: un Sitio del Intermedio Temprano en San Juan de Lurigancho. Revista
Arqueología Andina 1:52-61. Lima.
2009 Evidencias Arqueológicas del Periodo Formativo en la Quebrada de Canto Grande,
Valle Bajo del Rímac. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 13: 159-185. Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Acosta, José de
1962 Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias: en que se Tratan de las Cosas Notables del
Cielo, Elementos, Metales, Plantas y Animales de Ellas y los Ritos y Ceremonias, Leyes
y Gobierno de los Indios. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México.
Adanaqué, Raúl.
1993 Testamento de una Cacica del Callao. Páginas para la Historia 1: 39-51. Lima.
2008-2009 El Cacicazgo de Santa María Magdalena, Lima: Testamentos de sus Caciques
Principales, Siglos XVI-XIX. Historias. Revista de la Asociación Historia, Sociología y
Ecología. 3 -4 (3-4): 7-63. Lima.
Alarcón, Pedro
1971 Tres Fases Técnico Constructivas en la Huaca San Marcos-Lima. Tesis de Bachiller en
Arqueología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
434
Alcalde, Javier, Carlos del Águila and Fernando Fujita
2001 Nuevas Evidencias en Chincha: Nota Preliminar sobre Contextos de la Época Wari.
Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 5: 543-554. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Lima.
Alva, Walter
2000 Sipan. Discovery and Research. Quebecor Peru S.A. Lima.
Alva, Walter and Christopher .B. Donnan
1993 Royal Tombs of Sipán. Fowler Museum of Cultural History, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Ángeles, Rommel
2011 Cerámica Inca en Pachacámac. Ministerio de Cultura. Lima.
Ángeles, Rommel and Denise Pozzi-Escot
2010 El Horizonte Medio en Pachacámac. Arquelogía en el Perú. Nuevos Aportes para el
Estudio de las Sociedades Andinas Prehispánicas: 175-196. Rubén Romero Velarde y
Trine Pavel Svendsen editores. Lima.
Angrand, Léonce,
1972 Imagen del Perú en el siglo XIX. Milla Batres. Lima.
435
Angulo, Domingo
1913-1917 Notas y Monografías para la Historia del Barrio de San Lázaro de la Ciudad de
Lima. Revista Histórica 5: 272-309.
1919 Apuntes Históricos Acerca del Origen y Fundación de las Iglesias de Nuestra Señora de
Guadalupe y Monserrat de la Ciudad de Lima. Revista Histórica 6:41-59.
Arce, J.E.,
1984 Estructura Geoelectrica del Subsuelo Rímac-Chillón. Sociedad Geológica del Perú.
Jubilar, LX Aniversario: 1-13. Lima.
Archivo General de la Nación
1926 Revista del Archivo Nacional del Perú 4 (1-2). Librería e Imprenta Gil. Lima.
Arrieta, Ada
1974-1975 Primeros Hallazgos en Huaca “Casa Rosada” (Loza, Vidrio, Cerámica
Vitrificada), Asociados al Trabajo en el Archivo Histórico Nacional.
Arqueología PUC: Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 15-16: 159-166.
Instituto Riva Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Bazán, Francisco
1990 Arqueología y Etnohistoria de los Períodos Prehispánicos Tardíos de la Costa Central
del Perú. Tomos I y II. Tesis para optar el título de licenciado en arqueología.
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
436
2008 Los Contextos Funerarios Ichma Inicial de Conde de las Torres. Arqueología y
Sociedad 19: 9-22. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología. Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Barreto, María
2012 Prácticas Sacrificiales en el Valle Bajo del Rímac durante el Período Intermedio
Temprano (150 – 650 d.C). Tesis Para obtener el Grado Académico de Magister en
Arqueología Andina. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos Lima,
Belcore, Martha
1970 Ídolo de Cerámica encontrado en la Huaca Dieciocho (Fundo Pando-Lima). Boletín del
Seminario de Arqueología 8: 150-160. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú. Lima.
Bennett, Wendell C.
1954 Ancient Arts of the Andes. Museum of Modern Art. New York.
Bergh, Susan E. and Justin Jennings
2012 The History of Inquiry into the Wari and theirs Arts. Wari. Lords of the Ancient Andes:
5-27. Thames & Hudson.
Billman, Brian R.
1999 Reconstructing Prehistoric Political Economies and Cycles of Political in the Moche
Valley, Peru. Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas. Fifty years since Virú: 131-
159. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington.
437
2002 Irrigation and the Origins of the Southern Moche State on the North Coast of Peru.
Latin American Antiquity 13 (4):371-400. Society for American Archaeology.
Bonavia, Duccio
1974 Ricchata Quellccani: Pinturas Murales Prehispánicas. Fondo del Libro del Banco
Industrial. Lima.
Bonavia, Duccio; Ramiro Matos and Felix Caycho
1962-63 Junta Deliberante Metropolitana de Monumentos Históricos, Artísticos y
Lugares Arqueológicos de Lima. Informe sobre los Monumentos Arqueológicos. Lima.
Brack, Antonio
1987 “Ecología de un País Complejo” Gran Geografía del Perú. Naturaleza y Hombre.
Tomo 2: 175-314. Manfer-Juan Mejía Baca. Barcelona.
Bromley, Juan and José Barbagelata
1945 Evolución Urbana de la Ciudad de Lima. Consejo Provincial de Lima. Lima.
Bueno, Alberto
1983 El Antiguo Valle de Pachacamac (2da Parte). Boletín de Lima 25:5-27. Lima.
Buntinx, Elena de
1969 Huaca Pando: Plataforma A, Área 6. Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología. Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú 1. Lima.
438
1970 Vasos Antropomorfos en la Huaca de los Tres Palos (Fundo Pando, Lima). Boletín del
Seminario de Arqueología 6: 31-34. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad
Burger, Richard
1981 The Radiocarbon Evidence for the Temporal Priority of Chavin de Huantar American
Antiquity 46 (3): 592-602. Society for American Archaeology.
1992 Chavin and the Origin of the Andean Civilization. Thames and Hudson.
2008 Los Señores de los Templos. Señores de los Reinos de la Luna. Colección Artes y
Tesoros del Perú 35: 13-37. Banco de Crédito del Perú. Lima.
Burger, Richard and Lucy C. Salazar
2008 The Manchay Culture and the Coastal Inspiration for Highland Chavin. Chavin, Art,
Architecture and Culture (Edited by William J. Conklin and Jeffrey Quilter): 85-105.
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. University of California. Los Angeles.
Calancha, Fray Antonio de la
1638 Corónica Moralizada de la Orden de San Agustín en el Perú con Sucesos Ejemplares
en esta Monarquía. (5 Tomos). Archivo y Biblioteca Nacionales de Bolivia. La Paz.
Canziani, José
1987 Análisis del Complejo Urbano Maranga Chayavilca. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina. Año
IV, No 14. pp. 10-17. Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueológicos. Lima.
439
Cárdenas, Mario
1980 El Pueblo de Santiago. Un Ghetto en Lima Virreynal. Bulletin de l’Institut Français
d’Études Andines IX (3-4): 19-48. Lima.
Cárdenas, Mercedes
1965 La Huaca de los Tres Palos (Hacienda Pando, Valle del Rímac) y los Adobes
Asociados. Tesis para optar el grado de Bachiller. Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú. Lima.
1970 Ocupación Española de una Huaca del Valle de Lima: Casa en la Plataforma Superior
de la Huaca 3 Palos. Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 9: 40 - 49. Instituto Riva-
Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
1971 Huaca Palomino (Valle del Rímac): Fragmentería Vidriada Fina con Decoración en
Colores. Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 10: 61 - 67. Instituto Riva-Agüero.
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
1997 Reconocimiento Arqueológico del Montículo Huaca 20-A ubicado en el campus de la
Universidad: Informe Final. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
1999 Tablada de Lurín: excavaciones 1958-1989. 2 volúmenes. Pontificia Universidad
Católica. Lima.
440
Carmichael, Patrick H.
1995 Nasca Burial Patterns: Social Structure and Mourtuary Ideology. Tombs for the Living:
Andean Mortuary Practices. A Symposium at Dumbrton Oaks (Tom Dillehay
Editor):161-187. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Washington D.C.
Carneiro, Robert L.
1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169 (3947): 733-738. American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Carrera, Pablo
1961 Huaka Maranga. Diario de Campo. Operación de Salvataje en los terrenos de la Feria
Internacional del Pacífico. Mayo 1961. Informe inédito en los archivos del Museo
Nacional de Arqueología y Antropología del Perú. Lima.
Carrión, Rebeca
1959 La Religión en el Antiguo Perú. Tip. Peruana. Lima.
Carrión, Lucénida and Pedro Espinoza
2007a Arquitectura, Cronología y Función en la Muralla 55E del Complejo Arqueológico
Maranga. Cuaderno de Investigaciones. Museo de Sitio Ernst W. Middendorf 1: 33-66.
Patronato del Parque de las Leyendas. Lima.
2007b Investigaciones en la Huaca San Miguel, Complejo Arqueológico Maranga. Cuaderno
de Investigaciones. Museo de Sitio Ernst W. Middendorf 1: 67-115. Patronato del
Parque de las Leyendas. Lima.
441
Castillo, Luis Jaime
2001 La Presencia Wari en San José del Moro. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 4: 143-179.
2012 Looking at the Empire from the Outside In. Wari. Lords of the Ancient Andes: 47-61.
Thames & Hudson.
Castro, Fray Cristóbal and Diego Ortega y Morejón
1974 Relación y declaración del modo que este valle de Chincha y sus comarcanos se
gobernavan antes que oviese Yngas y después q(ue) los hobo hasta q(ue) los cristianos
entraron en la tierra. Edición de Juan Carlos Crespo, Historia y Cultura 8: 93-104.
Museo Nacional de Historia. Lima.
Ccencho, José
2006 El Alfar Pucllana Nievería. Cambios Registrados en una Vajilla Ceremonial y sus
Implicaciones Sociales. Cuadernos de Investigación INC 1:17-34. Instituto Nacional de
Cultura. Lima.
Cerdán y Pontero, Ambrosio
1793 Tratado General Sobre las Aguas que Fertilizan los Valles de Lima. Mercurio Peruano.
Lima.
Chapdelaine, Claude
2002 Out in the Streets of Moche. Urbanism and Sociopolitical Organization at a Moche IV
Urban Center. Andean Archaeology I. Variations in Sociopolitical Organization: 53-88.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
442
Charney, Paul
1989 The Destruction and Reorganization of Indian Society in the Lima Valley, Peru, 1532-
1824. UMI. Ann Arbor.
2001 Indian Society in the Valley of Lima, Peru, 1532-1824. University Press of America.
Maryland.
Chauca, George
2009 Uso y Abandono de la Plataforma 2 de la Huaca San Marcos Durante la Segunda
Época del Horizonte Medio. Tesis presentada para optar el Título Profesional en
Arqueología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima
Cieza de León, Pedro
1880 Del Señorío de los Incas. Imprenta de Manuel Gines Hernández. Madrid.
1922La Crónica del Perú. Calpe. Madrid.
Cobo, Bernabé
1882 Historia de la Fundación de Lima. Historiadores del Perú Tomo I. Imprenta Liberal.
Lima.
1979 History of the Inca Empire (Ronald Hamilton translator ). University of Texas Press.
Cock, Guillermo and Carmen Goycochea
2004 Puruchuco y el Cementerio Inca de la Quebrada de Huaquerones. Puruchuco y la
Sociedad de Lima: un Homenaje a Arturo Jiménez Borja: 179–197. Concytec. Lima.
443
Coloma, César
1989 “Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de la Magdalena y el Valle de Lima (1557-
1889). Historia y Cultura 18: 9 - 108. Museo Nacional de Historia. Lima.
Corbacho, Susana
1970 Mate Pirograbado de la Huaca Corpus I (Fundo Pando). Boletín del Seminario de
Arqueología 8: 1 - 9. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Lima.
1971a Piezas de Metal de la Huaca Tres Palos (Pando). Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología
10: 72-75. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
1971b Nota sobre Huaca Corpus I, Fundo Pando. Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 11:
89- 94. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Cornejo, Miguel
1985 Análisis del Material Cerámico Excavado por Hans Horkheimer en 1961. Lauri, Valle
de Chancay. Tesis de Licenciatura en Arqueología. Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú. Lima.
2002 Sacerdotes y Tejedores en la Provincia de Pachacámac. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP
6: 171-204. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
2004 Pachacámac y el Canal de Guatca en el Bajo Rímac. Bulletin de l’Institut Français
d’Études Andines 33 (3): 783-814. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. Lima.
444
Cornejo, César
2001 El Conchal de Bellavista y su Relación Cronológica con Ancón. Boletín del Museo de
Arqueología y Antropología 4 (2). Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Cox, Jorge
1976 La Huaca Culebra. Cuadernos de Arqueología Andina. Boletín de la Fundación
“Josefina Ramos de Cox” N° 1. Homenaje a Josefina Ramos de Cox: 19-23. Lima.
Crumley, Carole
1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Heterarchy and the Analysis of
Complex Societies (ed. R. Ehrenreich, C. Crumley, and J. Levy): 1–6. Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. Washington, DC.
Darwin, Charles
1864 Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited
During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Around the World, Under the Command of Capt.
Fritz Roy. Volumen II. R.N. Harper & Brothers. New York.
Del Busto Duthurburu, José Antonio
2000-2001 Pizarro (2 volúmenes). PetroPerú. Lima.
445
Delgado, Mercedes
2007 Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Villa El Salvador: Secuencia Cerámica en Contextos
Funerarios. Tesis para optar el Título de Licenciado en Arqueología. Pontificia
Díaz, Luisa y Francisco Vallejo
2002a Identificación de Contextos Ichma en Armatambo. Arqueología y Sociedad, 14: 47-75;
Lima: Museo de Arqueología y Antropología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Lima.
2002b Armatambo y el Dominio Incaico de Lima. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 6: 355-374.
Dillehay, Tom
1976 Competition and Colaboration in a Prehispanic Multi-Ethnic System in the Central
Andes. PhD Dissertation presented to the Graduate School of the University of Texas at
Austin.
Dillehay, Tom D., Herbert H. Eling, Jr. and Jack Rossen
2005 Preceramic Irrigation Canals in the Peruvian Andes. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (47), Opportunity and Habitat
Drive Species Invasion: 17241- 17244. National Academy of Sciences.
446
Dolorier, Camilo and Lyda Casas
2008 Caracterización de Algunos Estilos Locales de la Costa Central a Inicios del Intermedio
Tardío. Arqueología y Sociedad 19: 23-42. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología.
2009 Caracterización del Estilo Tricolor Gemérico y Evaluación de Contactos. Revista
Chilena de Antropología 20: 169—188. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Universidad de
Chile, Santiago.
Donnan, Christopher
2007 Moche Tombs at Dos Cabezas. Cotsen Institute of Aarchaeology at UCLA. Monograph
59.
Dulanto, Jahl
2009 Pampa Chica ¿Qué Sucedió en la Costa Central Después del Abandono de los Templos
en U? Arqueología del Periodo Formativo en la Cuenca Baja de Lurín. Volumen
1:375-399. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Duviols, Pierre
1967 Un inédit de Cristobal de Albornoz: La instrucción para descubrir todas las guacas del
Pirú y sus camayos y haciendas. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 56 (1): 7-39.
Paris.
447
Earle, Timothy
1972 Lurin Valley, Peru: Early Intermediate Period Settlement Development. American
Antiquity 37 (4): 467-477. Society for American Archaeology.
1978 Economic and Socil Orgniztion of Complex Chiefdoms. The Halelea District, Kaua’I,
Hawaii. Anthropological Papers 63. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
Ann Arbor.
Echevarría, Gori
1995 El Rescate Arqueológico de la Huaca Concha. V Congreso Nacional de Estudiantes de
Arqueología CONADEA “Luis A. Pardo”. Actas y Trabajos: 37-55. Universidad
Nacional San Antonio de Abad del Cusco. Cusco.
2004 Un Reporte y el Catálogo Inédito de 1993. Revista de Investigaciones del CEAR 6: 45-
57. Centro de Estudiantes de Arqueología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Lima.
Eeckhout, Peter
2008 Poder y Jerarquías Ychsmas en el Valle del Río Lurín. Arqueología y Sociedad 19: 223-
240. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Lima.
2010 Nuevas Evidencias Funerarias sobre Costumbres Funerarias en Pachacámac. Max Uhle
(1856-1944). Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras: 151-312. Fondo Editorial
de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
448
Eguiguren, Luis
1945 Las Calles de Lima. Lima.
El Corregidor (Adán Felipe Mejía Herrera)
1935 Ingeniado y alegre pormenor de los acaecimientos memorables que concurrieron a la
felice fundación de la Ciudad de los Reyes del Perú, en diez e ocho de enero de mil e
quinientos e treinta e cinco años. Seguido de muy somera repasada a la amena y
episódica historia de la misma. Empresa Periodística Hermanos Faura. Lima.
Engel, Frédéric
1984 Prehistoric Andean Ecology. Man, Settlement and Environment in the Andes. Chilca.
Papers of the Department of Anthropology Hunter College of the City of New York.
Espinoza, Pedro
2010 Arquitectura y Procesos Sociales Tardíos en Maranga, Valle Bajo del Rímac.
Arqueología en el Perú. Nuevos Aportes para el Estudio de las Sociedades Andinas
Prehispánicas (Editores Rubén Romero Velarde y Trine Pavel Svendsen): 263-309.
Lima.
Espinoza, Pedro, Alberto Tapia and Karen Luján
2008 Huaca Aznapuquio: Nuevos Datos sobre Ocupación Humana, Recursos Hídricos y
Territorio Étnico en la Cuenca Baja del Chillón. Arqueología y Sociedad 19: 129-157.
Museo de Arqueología y Antropología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Lima.
449
Espinoza, Waldemar
1960 El Alcalde Mayor Indígena en el Virreinato del Perú. Anuario de Estudios Americanos
17: 183-300. Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de Sevilla.
1967 El Primer Informe Etnológico sobre Cajamarca. Año de 1540. Separata de la Revista
Peruana de la Cultura 11-12. Casa de la Cultura. Lima.
Falcón, Víctor
2004 Morir en Playa Grande. El rescate de un entierro de la cultura Lima. Imagen de la
Muerte. Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades: 23-
37. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Falcón, Víctor and Augusto Amador
1997 Un Entierro de Patrón Funerario Lima en Cerro Culebra. Mauq‟a Llaqta. Revista de
Investigaciones Arqueológicas 1 (1): 51-68. Lima.
Falconí, Iván
2008 Caracterización de la Cerámica de la Fase Ychsma Medio del sitio Armatambo, Costa
Central del Perú. Arqueología y Sociedad 19:43-66. Museo de Arqueología y
Antropología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Feltham, Jane y Peter Eeckhout
2004 Hacia una definición del estilo Ychsma: Aportes preliminares sobre la cerámica
Ychsma Tardía de la Pirámide III de Pachacámac. Bulletin de l’Institut Français
d’Études Andines 33 (3): 643-679. Lima
450
Flannery, Kent V.
1995 Prehistoric Social Evolution. Research Frontiers in Anthropology (edited by C.R.
Ember and M. Ember): 1-26. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
1998 The Ground Palns of Archic States. Archaic States (Edited by Gary M. Feinman and
Joyce Marcus): 16-57. School of America Research. Advance Seminar Series.
Flores, Isabel
2005 Pucllana: Esplendor de la Cultura Lima. Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Lima.
Flores-Zúñiga, Fernando
2000 La Bendita Magdalena Bastión de Peruanidad: Pueblo Libre Distrito Histórico. Pueblo
Libre.
2001 Apuntamientos sobre el Valle Magdalena-Maranga, “San Miguel” y “Buenamuerte”.
Reseña archivística. Revista del Archivo General de la Nación 22: 271-198. Ministerio
de Justicia-Archivo General de la Nación. Lima.
2009 Haciendas y Pueblos de Lima Tomo I. Valle de Huatica: Cercado, La Victoria, Lince y
San Isidro. Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Peru. Lima.
2013 Haciendas y Pueblos de Lima Tomo III. Historia de Magdalena, Maranga y la Legua.
Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Peru. Lima.
451
Franco, Régulo y Ponciano Paredes
2000 El Templo Viejo de Pachacámac. Nuevos Aportes al Estudio del Horizonte Medio.
Lima.
2003 El Templo Viejo de Pachacámac. Estudios Arqueológicos (1986-1990). Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection. Washington D.C.
Fried, Morton H.
1967 The Evolution of Political Society. Random House. New York.
Fuentes, José Luis
2009 La Secuencia Cronológica de la Huaca La Florida, Valle del Rímac, Perú. Tesis para
optar el título profesional de Licenciado en Arqueología. Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos. Lima.
2012 Huaca La Florida: la Secuencia Cronológica de un Templo en U en el Valle del Rímac.
Arqueología y Sociedad 24:191-226. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Lima.
Fung Pineda, Rosa
2004 Iniciación de los Trabajos arqueológicos en la huaca San Marcos. Quehaceres de la
arqueología peruana: compilación de escritos. Rosa Fung. Museo de Arqueología y
452
Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca
1995 Comentarios Reales de los Incas I (Índice analítico y glosario de Carlos Araníbar).
Fondo de Cultura Económica. México.
Gayton, Anna
1927 The Uhle Collections from Nievería. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology 21 (8): 305-329. Berkeley.
Gonzales, Marino
1954 Informe de la Huaca Aramburu. Informe presentado al Señor Jefe de Exploración y
Conservación de Ruinas y Monumentos Arqueológicos. Lima.
Guamán Poma de Ayala, Felipe
1993 Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno. 3 tomos. (Edición y Prólogo de Franklin Peases
G.Y.). Fondo de Cultura Económica. México.
Guarisco, Piero
1994 Excavaciones en el Campus de San Marcos. Sequilao III (6):107-112. Lima.
Guerrero, Daniel
1998 Prehistoria. Historia del Distrito de La Molina (Luis E. Tord editor): 63-106.
Municipalidad de La Molina. Lima.
453
Guerrero, Daniel y Jonathan Palacios
1994 El Surgimiento del Estilo Nievería en el Valle del Rímac. Boletín de Lima 91-96: 275-
311. Lima.
Guillén, Marco
2012 Descubrimientos Arqueológicos en Huaca Huantille, Valle Bajo del Rímac, durante el
Período Intermedio Tardío. Arqueología y Sociedad 24:371-392. Museo de Arqueología
y Antropología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Günther, Juan
1983 Planos de Lima, 1613-1983. Municipalidad de Lima Metropolitana. Petróleos del Perú.
Lima.
1992 Lima. Mapfre. Madrid.
2004 Arquitectura de la Casa de Aliaga. Casa solariega de Aliaga: 30-73. Buenaventura.
Lima.
2012 Memorias de Lima. De Haciendas a Pueblos y Distritos. Los Portales. Círculo Polar.
Lima.
Gutiérrez de Santa Clara, Pedro
1904 Historia de las Guerras Civiles del Perú (1544-1548) y de Otros Sucesos de las Indias.
Librería General de Victoriano Suárez. Madrid.
454
Harth-Terré, Emilio
1960 El asiento arqueológico de la ciudad de Lima. Las 5 huacas de la Plaza de Armas
Diario El Comercio. Lunes 18 de enero de 1960. Lima.
Hass, Jonathan and Winifred Creamer
2006 Crucible of Andean Civilization. Current Anthropology, Volume 47, Number 5: 745-
775.
Hayashida, Frances
2006 The Pampa de Chaparrí: Water, Land, and Politics on the North Coast of Peru. Latin
American Antiquity 17 (3): 243-263. Society for American Archaeology.
Hernández, Carla
2011 Aproximaciones a los Procesos de Abandono del Complejo Maranga en los Periodos
Tardíos. Arqueología Peruana: Homenaje a Mercedes Cárdenas: 267-292. Instituto
Riva-Agüero - Centro Cultural de San Marcos. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
- Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Hecht, Niels
2009 Of Layers and Sherds: A Context-Based Relative Chronology of the Nasca Style
Pottery from Palpa. New Technologies for Archaeology Multidisciplinary Investigations
in Palpa and Nasca, Peru: 207-230. Springer.
455
Hogg, Alan G., Quan Hua, Paul G. Blackwell, Mu Niu, Caitlin E Buck, Thomas P. Guilderson,
Timothy J. Heaton, Jonathan G. Palmer, Paula J. Reimer, Ron W. Reimer, Christian S. M.
Turney, and Susan R H Zimmerman
2013 SHCal13 Southern Hemisphere Calibration, 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55
(4): 1889–1903. University of Arizona.
Holmberg, Rikard; Fernando Núñez Manco; Nella Marcos Sánchez; Ricardo Pérez Torres Llosa
1990 Una sociedad Incaica bajo control español: 1535 – 1555. Historia del Callao: 83 – 97.
CONCYTEC - Centro de Investigaciones Históricas del Callao - Concejo Provincial del
Callao. Lima.
Huertas, Lorenzo
1999 Introducción al Estudio de la Plaza Mayor de Lima. Historia y Cultura 23: 281-336.
Hutchinson, Thomas
1873 Two Years in Peru with Explorations of its Antiquities. Vol. 1. Sampson Low, Maiston
Jow & Searle. London.
Isbell, William
1977 The Rural Foundations of Ruralism. Illinois Studies in Anthropology 10. University of
Illinois Press.
2000 Repensando el Horizonte Medio: El Caso de Conchopata, Ayacucho, Perú. Boletín de
Arqueología PUCP 4: 9-68. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
456
2010 La Arqueología Wari y la Dispersión del Quechua. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP
Isbell, William and Katharina J. Schreiber
1978 “Was Huari a State?” American Antiquity 43 (3): 372-389. Society for American
Archaeology
Isbell, William and Margaret Young-Sanchez
2012 Wari’s Andean Legacy. Wari Lords of the Ancient Andes: 251-266. Thames&Hudon.
Isla, Elizabeth and Daniel Guerrero
1987 Socos: un Sitio Huari en el Valle del Chi1lón. Gaceta Arqueologica Andina 4 (41): 23-
28, Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueológicos, Lima.
Jaime, Cecilia
1999 Excavaciones en la Huaca de San Marcos. Investigaciones Sociales III (3): 65-91.
Jennings, Justin
2006 Understanding Middle Horizon Peru: Hermeneutic Spirals, Interpretative Traditions,
and Wari Interpretative Centers. Latin American Antiquity 17 (3):265-285. Society for
American Archaeology.
457
2010 Becoming Huari. Globalization and the Role of the Wari State in the Cotahuasi Valley
of Southern Peru. Beyond Wari Walls. Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru:
37-56. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.
Jijón y Caamaño, Jacinto
1949 Maranga: Contribución al Conocimiento de los Aborígenes de Lima. La Prensa
Católica. Quito.
Jiménez, Milagritos
2009 Ocupaciones Tempranas de lomas en el valle de Lurín. Arqueología del Periodo
Formativo en la Cuenca Baja de Lurín. Volumen 1:235-318. Pontificia Universidad
Jochamowitz, Alberto
1919 Memoria que el Director de Aguas Ingeniero Alberto Jochamowitz presenta al
Ministerio de Fomento. Volumen II. Memorias de las Comisiones Técnicas de Aguas
1918-1919. Oficina “La Opinion Nacional”. Lima.
Johnson, George R.
1930 Peru from the Air. American Geographical Society. New York.
Karakouzian, M., Candia, M., Watkins, M.D., Wyman, R.V., and Hudyma, N.
1996 Geology of Lima, Peru. Geotechnical aspects. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica del
Perú 85: 27-59.
458
Kaulicke, Peter
1997 Contextos Funerarios de Ancón. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
2000 La Sombra de Pachacamac. Huari en la Costa Central. Huari y Tiwanaku. Modelos vs.
Evidencias. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 4: 313-358. Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú. Lima.
Kosok, Paul
1965 Life, Land and Water in Ancient Peru. Long Island University Press.
Kroeber, Alfred
1926 The Uhle Pottery Collections from Chancay. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 21 (7): 265-304. The University of California
Press. Berkeley, California.
1954 Proto-Lima: a Middle Period Culture of Peru. Chicago Natural History Museum Press.
Chicago.
Lanning, Edward P.
1960 Chronological and Cultural Relationships of Early Pottery Styles in Ancient Peru.
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of California. Berkeley.
1967 Peru Before the Incas. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
459
Larco, Rafael
1948 Cronología Arqueológica del Norte del Perú. Sociedad Geográfica Americana. Buenos
Aires.
Lavallée, Danièle
1965 Una colección cerámica de Pachacamac. Revista del Museo Nacional 34: 220-246.
Lima.
Lazo, Roxana; Martín Mac Kay, Mirtha Pillaca y Carlos Landauro
2011 Caracterización de los Elementos presentes en fragmentería de cerámica de dos estilos
diferentes: Lima (Lima) y Chakipampa (Ayacucho) encontrados dentro del Complejo
Maranga. II Congreso Latinoamericano de Arqueometría: 253-262. IPEN –
Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería – OEI.
Lee, Bertram T. and Juan Bromley
1935-1962 Libros de Cabildos de Lima (23 volúmenes). Concejo Provincial de Lima. Lima.
León Portocarrero, Pedro
1958 Descripción del Virreinato del Perú: crónica inédita de comienzos del siglo XVII.
Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la
Educación. Rosario.
460
Le Roux, J.P., C. Tavares, and F. Alayza,
2000 Sedimentology of the Rimac-Chillon alluvial fan at Lima, Peru, as related to Plio-
Pleistocene sea-level changes, glacial cycles and tectonics. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences 13: 499-510.
Levillier, Roberto
1935-1942 Don Francisco de Toledo, supremo organizador del Perú: su vida, su obra
(1515-1582). Espasa-Calpe. Madrid.
Lizárraga, Reginaldo de
1968 Descripción Breve de Toda la Tierra del Perú, Tucumán, Río de la Plata y Chile.
Biblioteca de Autores Españoles. Madrid.
Lohmann, Guillermo.
1984 El testamento del Curaca de Lima Don Gonzalo Taulichusco (1562). Revista del
Archivo General de la Nación 7 Segunda Época: 267-275. Lima.
López de Velasco, Juan
1894 Geografía y Descripción Universal de las Indias. Establecimiento tipográfico de
Fortanet. Madrid.
461
Ludeña, Hugo
1970 San Humberto: Un sitio Formativo en el valle del río Chillón. Arqueología y Sociedad
2:37-47. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología. Univrsidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Lima.
Lumbreras, Luís
1969 De los Pueblos, las Culturas y las Artes del Antiguo Perú. Moncloa-Campodónico.
Lima.
1974 Las Fundaciones de Huamanga. Hacia una Prehistoria de Ayacucho. Editorial Nueva
Educación. Lima.
1981 Arqueología de la América Andina. Editorial Milla Batres. Lima.
1993 Chavín de Huántar: excavaciones en la Galería de las Ofrendas. Materialien zur
Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaeologie, Band 51. Verlag Phillip von Abern,
Mainz am Rhein.
2011 Jacinto Jijón y Caamaño. Estudios sobre Lima Prehispánica. Maranga. FONSAL.
Quito.
Macera, Pablo
2006 El Inca Colonial. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
462
Machacuay, Marco Antonio y Rocío Aramburú
1998 Contextos Funerarios en La Salina, Valle del Rímac. Arqueología y Sociedad 12: 37-50.
Lima.
Mac Kay, Martín and Raphael Santa Cruz
2000 Las Excavaciones del Proyecto Arqueológico Huaca 20 (1999 y 2001). Boletín de
Arqueología PUCP 4: 581-595. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
2010 El Sitio Arqueológico Huaca 20-A. Excavaciones Dentro del Campus de la PUCP.
Arkeos. Revista Electrónica de Arqueología PUCP 5 (12): 11-25. Pontificia
Mac Kay, Martín
2007 Contextos Funerarios Lima de la Huaca 20: Reconstrucción del Ritual Funerario y la
Vida Cotidiana del Valle del Rímac en los Inicios del Horizonte Medio. Tesis para optar
el Título de Licenciado en Arqueología. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
2011 Ideología y Funeraria Lima. El Caso de la Huaca 20. Reconstrucción del Ritual
Funerario y la Vida Cotidiana del Valle del Rímac en los Inicios del Horizonte Medio.
Arqueología Peruana: Homenaje a Mercedes Cárdenas: 177-205. Instituto Riva-
Agüero-Centro Cultural de San Marcos. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú-
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima
463
MacNeish, Richard; Thomas C. Patterson, and David L. Browman
1975 The Central Prehistoric Interaction Sphere. Papers of Robert S. Peabody foundation for
Archaeology, vol. seven. Phillips Academy, Andover. Massachusetts.
Maguiña, Adriana and Ponciano Paredes
2009 El Panel: Patrón de Enterramiento, Análisis del Material y su Correlación Estilística en
la Costa Central del Perú. Arqueología del Periodo Formativo en la Cuenca Baja de
Lurín. Volumen 1:331-376. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Makowski, Krysztof
2002 Power and Social Ranking at the End of the Formative Period: The Lower Lurin Valley
Cemeteries. Andean Archaeology I. Variations in Social Organization: 137-175. Kluer
Academic/Plenum Publisher.
2008 Anden Urbanism. Handbook of South American Archaeology (Edited by Helaine
Silverman nd William H. Isbell): 633-657. Springer
2009 Poder y Estatus Social a Fines del Periodo Formativo en los Cementerios del Valle Bajo
de Lurín. Arqueología del Periodo Formativo en la Cuenca Baja de Lurín. Volumen
Makowski, Krzysztof and Milena Vega Centeno
2004 Estilos Regionales en la Costa Central en el Horizonte Tardío Una aproximación Desde
el Valle de Lurín. Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Etudes Andines 33(3):681-714.
Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. Lima.
464
Málaga Medina, Alejandro
1974 Las reducciones en el Perú (1532-1600). Historia y Cultura 8: 141-172. Lima.
Maquera, Erick
2008 Huaca Naranjal: Un Centro de Producción de Cerámica Estilo Ychsma en el Valle de
Chillón. Arqueología y Sociedad 19:67-82. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología.
Marcone, Giancarlo
2001 El Complejo de Adobitos y la Cultura Lima en el Santuario de Pachacámac. Huari y
Tiwanaku. Modelos vs. Evidencias. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 4: 597-605.
2010 What Role did Wari Play in the Lima Political Economy. Beyond Wari Walls. Regional
Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru: 136-154. University of New Mexico Press.
Albuquerque.
Martín-Pastor, Eduardo
1938 De la vieja casa de Pizarro al nuevo Palacio de Gobierno. Ministerio de Fomento y
Obras Públicas del Perú. Lima.
Massey, Sarah Ann
1986 Sociopolitical Change in the Upper Ica Valley, BC 400 to 400 AD: Regional States on
the South Coast of Perú. PhD Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of
California. Los Angeles.
465
Matos, Ramiro
1962 La Cerámica Temprana de Ancón y sus Problemas. Tesis para optar el Grado de Doctor
en Letras. Especialidad de Etnología y Arqueología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos. Lima.
Mattos-Cárdenas, Leonardo
2004 Urbanismo Andino e Hispano Americano: Ideas y Realizaciones (1530-1830). Facultad
de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Artes. Instituto de Investigación FAUA, Universidad
Nacional de Ingeniería. Lima.
Means, Philip
1931 Ancient Civilizations of the Andes. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York.
Meléndez, Fray Juan de
1681 Tesoros Verdaderos de Indias. Tomo Primero. Roma.
Mendoza, Rosa
1974 Vásquez, una Aldea Formativa en el Valle del Rímac. Tesis de Bachiller, Programa
Académico de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Menzel, Dorothy
1964 Style and Time in the Middle Horizon. Ñawpa Pacha 2: 1-105. Berkeley.
466
1971 Estudios Arqueológicos en los Valles de Ica, Pisco, Chincha y Cañete. Arqueología y
Sociedad 6: 9-100. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología. Universidad Nacional
Meyers, Albert
1975. Algunos Problemas en la Clasificación del Estilo Incaico. Pumapunku 8: 7-25. La Paz.
Michczyński, Adam; Peter Eeckhout and Anna Pazdur
2003 Absolute Chronology of Pyramid III and the Dynastic Model at Pachacamac, Peru.
Radiocarbon 45 (1): 59-73. Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of
Arizona.
Middendorf, Ernst
1894 Peru. Beobachtungen und Studien über das Land und Seine Bewohner. II Band. Das
Küstenland von Peru. Robert Oppenheinm (Gustav Schmidt). Berlin.
Milla, Carlos
1974 Inventario, Catastro y Delimitación del Patrimonio Arqueológico del Valle del Rímac y
Santa Eulalia. Centro de Investigación y Restauración de Bienes Monumentales.
Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Lima.
Mitchell, William
1973 The Hydraulic Hypothesis: A Reappraisal. Current Anthropology 14 (5): 532-534. The
University of Chicago Press
467
1976 Irrigation and Community in the Central Peruvian Highlands. American Anthropologist
78:25-44.
Mogrovejo, Juan and Rafael Segura
2000 El Horizonte Medio en el Conjunto Arquitectónico Julio C. Tello de Cajamarquilla.
Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias: 565-582.
Molina, Cristóbal de
1916 Relación de Fábulas y Mitos de los Incas. Imprenta y Librería San Martín y Ca. Lima.
Montoya, Huayta
1995 Análisis de Fragmentería de Cerámica Excavada en un Relleno de Clausura. Complejo
Arqueológico Pucllana. Tesis de licenciatura en Arqueología. Pontificia Universidad
Moore, Jerry
1995 The Archaeology of Dual Organization in Andean South America: A Theoretical
Review and Case Study. Latin American Antiquity 6 (2): 165-181. Society for
American Archaeology.
Moseley, Edward
1975 The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Cummings Publishing. Menlo Park,
California.
468
Murúa, Martin de
1962-1964 Historia General del Perú, Origen y Descendencia de los Incas. 2 tomos.
Góngora. Madrid.
Narváez, José
1998 El Antiguo Complejo Arqueológico “Makatampu”. Boletín del Museo de Arqueología y
Antropología 1 (10): 3-6. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
1999 Proyecto de Investigaciones arqueológicas en la Huaca San Marcos. Resultados
Preliminres. Boletín del Museo de Arqueología y Antropología 2 (5): 5-10. Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
2000 Dos Mates pirograbados de la Época 2 del Horizonte Medio de la Huaca San Marcos.
Boletín del Museo de Arqueología y Antropología 3 (7): 8-14. Universidad Nacional
2006a Sociedades de la Antigua Ciudad de Cajamarquilla. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en
el Sector XI del Conjunto Tello y un Estudio de la Colección Tardía del Conjunto
Sestieri. Avqi Ediciones. Lima.
2006b Una Visión General del Desarrollo de las Sociedades Prehispánicas del Valle del
Rímac. ConTextos 1: 109-160. Avqui Ediciones. Lima.
Nash, Donna
2013 The Art of Feasting: Building an Empire with Food and Drink. Wari. Lords of the
Ancient Andes: 82-100. Thames and Hudson.
469
Netherly, Patricia
1984 The Management of Late Andean Irrigation Systems on the North Coast of Peru.
1988 From Event to Process: The Recovery of Late AndeanOrganization Structure by Means
of Spanish Colonial Writ-ten Records. In Peruvian Prehistory: An Overview of the Pre-
Inca and Inca Society, edited by Richard W. Keatinge: 257–275. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
1993 The Nature of Andean State. In Configurations of Power: Holistic Anthropology in
Theory and Practice, edited by John S. Henderson and Patricia J. Netherly: 11–35.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca. New York
Núñez, José
2003 Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Plataforma IV de la Huaca San Marcos. Avances
en Ciencias Sociales 1:43-53. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Universidad Nacional
Obando, Isolina
1970 Ídolo de Cerámica encontrado en la Huaca Dieciocho (Fundo Pando – Lima). 161-167.
Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología (8): 161-162. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia
470
Ochatoma, José
2007 Alfareros del Imperio Huari. Vida Cotidiana y Áreas de Actividad en Conchopata.
Universidad Nacional San Cristóbal de Huamanga. Huamanga.
Odriozola, Manuel de
1863-1877 Colección de Documentos Literarios del Perú. Aurelio Alfaro. Lima.
Olivera, Carlos
2009 Análisis de la arquitectura Lima en Asentamientos no Monumentales: una Visión Desde
la Arquitectura de la Zona Este del Sitio Arqueológico Huaca 20. Tesis para optar el
Título de Licenciado en Arqueología. Pontifica Universidad Católica del Perú.
Olivera, Julio
1972 De cómo era la antigua Chaya Cala o valle de la Magdalena. Lima.
Olivera de Bueno, Gloria
1971 Tejidos Funerarios de Pando (Lima). Una Clasificación. Boletín del Seminario de
Arqueología (11): 66-80. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú. Lima.
O’Phelan, Scarlett
1971 Breve Comentario sobre Idolillos Humanos o “Cuuchimilcos”. Boletín del Seminario de
Perú. Lima.
471
Palacios Jonathan
1988 La Secuencia de la Cerámica Temprana del Valle de Lima en Huachipa. Gaceta
Arqueológica Andina. 16 (13-24). Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueológicos. Lima.
Paredes, Juan
1998 Cabezas Trofeo y Rituales de la Cultura Lima en Maranga. Boletín del Museo de
Arqueología y Antropología 1 (11): 3-5. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Lima.
1999 Cabezas Trofeo y Rituales Funerarios en la Cultura Lima. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina
25: 45-60. Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueológicos. Lima.
Paredes, Ponciano
1986 El Panel-Pachacamac: Nuevo Patrón de Enterramiento en la Tablada de Lurín. Boletín
de Lima 44: 7-20. Editorial Los Pinos. Lima.
Paredes, Ponciano and Régulo Franco
1987 Pachacamac: Las Pirámides con Rampa, Cronología y Función. Gaceta Arqueológica
Andina. 13:5-7. INDEA. Lima.
Pastor, Martin
1942 El Pueblo del Cacique y los Orígenes de la Ciudad de Lima”. Actas y Trabajos XVII
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. Lima 1939. Nº 2: 379 – 397.
472
Patterson, Thomas C.
1966 Pattern and Process in the Early Intermediate Pottery of the Central Coast of Peru.
University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
1985 The Huaca La Florida, Rimac Valley, Peru. Early Ceremonial Architecture in the
Andes: 59-69. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Washington DC.
Patterson, Thomas Carl and Edward P. Lanning
1964 “Changing settlements Pattern on Central Peruvian Coast”. Ñawpa Pacha Nº 2, pp. 113
– 123. Berkeley.
Patterson, Thomas and Michael E. Moseley
1968 “Late Preceramic and Early Ceramic Cultures of the Central Coast of Peru”. Ñawpa
Pacha 6: 115 – 133. Instituto de Estudios Andinos. Berkeley.
Paul, Anne
1991 Paracas. An Ancient Cultural Tradition on the South Coast of Peru. Paracas Art &
Archtecture in South Coastal Peru: 1-34. University of Iowa Press. Iowa City.
Paz Soldán, Mariano
1865 Atlas geográfico del Perú. Librería de Fermín Didot Hermanos, Hijos y Co. París.
Peñaherrera, Carlos
1987 Geografía Física del Perú. Gran Geografía del Perú. Naturaleza y Hombre. 1:1-221.
Manfer-Juan Mejía Baca. Barcelona.
473
Pérez, Maritza
2004 Proyecto de Investigación Arqueológica y Etnohistórica en Mateo Salado. Cuadernos
de Investigación. Serie Arqueología 1 (2da época). Museo Nacional de Arqueología,
Antropología e Historia del Perú. Lima.
Pillaca M., C.V. Landauro, R. Lazo and M. Mac Kay
2009 Caracterización de Cerámica Pre-colombina de Estilo Chakipampa y Lima. Revista de
Investigación de Física 12 (2): 1-5. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Pierce, Stephanie
2008 Análisis de la decoración de la Fragmentería de Cerámica del Área 3 del Sitio “Huaca
20”. Tesis para optar el Título de Licenciado en Arqueología. Pontificia Universidad
Pinilla, José
1982 Estudio de Canales de Riego de Maranga. Dirección Ejecutiva del Proyecto Especial:
Obra Museo Nacional de Antropología y Arqueología.
1983 Excavaciones en el Canal Principal-Maranga. Dirección Ejecutiva del Proyecto
Especial: Obra Museo Nacional de Antropología y Arqueología.
Porras, Raúl
1953 La Raíz India de Lima. El Comercio. 28 de Julio. Lima.
1978 Pizarro. Editorial Pizarro. Lima.
474
Pozorski, Thomas
1987 Changing Priorities within the Chimu State: The Role of Irrigation Agriculture. The
Origins and Development of the Andean State (edited by Jonathan Haas, Shelia
Pozorski, and Thomas Pozorski): 111-120. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pozorski, Shelia and Thomas Pozorski
1986 Recent Excavations at Pampa de las Llamas-Moxeke, a Complex Initial Period Site in
Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 381-401.
Proulx, Donald A.
2008 Paracas and Nasca: Regional Cultures on the South Coast of Peru. Handbook of South
American Archaeology: 563-585. Springer.
Quilter, Jeffrey and Michele L. Koons
2012 The Fall of the Moche: a Critique of Claims for South America’s First State. Latin
Quintana J. and J. Tovar
2002 Evaluación del acuífero de Lima (Perú) y medidas correctoras para contrarrestar la
sobreexplotación. Boletín Geológico y Minero 113 (3): 303-312. Lima.
475
Quiroz, Sonia
1997 La Huaca Potosí en el Complejo Arqueológico Maranga. Informe Presentado al Curso
Taller de Investigación Arqueológica de la Escuela Académico-Profesional de
Arqueología de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Quiroz, Francisco
2007 Historia del Callao: de Puerto de Lima a Provincia Constitucional. Fondo Editorial del
Pedagógico San Marcos. Callao Gobierno Regional. Lima.
Ramirez, Susan E.
1995 De pescadores y Agricultores: una Historia Local de la Gente del Valle de Chicama
antes de 1565. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 24: 245–279.
1996 The World Upside Down. Coss-Cultural Contact and Conflict in Sixteenth-Century
Peru. Stanford University Press. Stanfrd, California.
Ramírez, Filiberto
1974-1975 Un Tipo de Quincha Empleado en la "Casa Rosada" (Pando, Lima).
Arqueología PUC: Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 15-16: 75-77. Instituto
Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Ramón, Gabriel
2005 La Plaza, las Plazas y las Plazuelas: usos del Espacio Público en Lima colonial. Lima en
el siglo XVI: 103-132. PUCP-Instituto Riva-Agüero. Lima.
476
Ramos, Jesús y Ponciano Paredes
2010 Excavaciones en la Segunda Muralla-Sector Puente Lurín. Correlación Estratigráfica de
los Estilos Cerámicos Durante el Horizonte Tardío en el Santuario Pachacamac.
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 39 (1): 105-166. Lima
Ramos de Cox, Josefina
1969 ¿Estuvo el Oráculo del Rímac en Huatca? La Huaca de los Tres Palos. Mesa Redonda
de Ciencias Pre-Históricas y Antropológicas/ Mesa Redonda de Ciencias Prehistóricas
y Antropológicas: 229-236. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú. Lima.
1970a Control de Equinoccios y Solsticios en el Antiguo Perú 150±80 d.C. Boletín del
Seminario de Arqueología 9: 58 - 65. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad
1970b El Personaje de los Cinco Cantaritos (Lima-Perú). Boletín del Seminario de
Perú. Lima.
1971a Figurines de Lima: Posibles Arquetipos Ocupacionales. Boletín del Seminario de
Arqueología 11: 103-108. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú. Lima.
1971b ¿Transporte Pre-hispánico con Llamas? Pando-Lima (P.V.47-I, II y III) (1260 d.C.-
1,350 d.C?). Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 10: 68-71. Instituto Riva-Agüero.
477
1974-75 Informe preliminar sobre el Proyecto de Arqueología y computación del material del
Complejo Pando. Arqueología PUC: Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 15-16: 7-
12. Instituto Riva-Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Ramos de Cox, Josefina and Gilda Cogorno
1976 De las Coordenadas-Hora a los Quipus: la Sabiduría Oculta de los Sacerdotes
Astrónomos (130-1535 d. de J.C.). Cuadernos de Arqueología Andina. Boletín de la
Fundación “Josefina Ramos de Cox” N° 1. Homenaje a Josefina Ramos de Cox: 10-18.
Lima.
Ramos de Cox, Josefina, Jorge Cox and Susana Corbacho
1974-1975 Técnicas de Registro del Material Asociado en el Área del Fundo Pando.
Arqueología PUC: Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología 15-16: 131-132.
Instituto Riva Agüero. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Ravines, Rogger
1977 Prácticas funerarias en Ancón (Parte 1). Revista del Museo Nacional 43:327-397. Lima.
1982 Panorama de la Arqueología Andina. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lima.
1985 Inventario de Monumentos Arqueológicos del Perú. Lima Metropolitana.
Municipalidad de Lima Metropolitana-Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Lima.
2000 Canto Chico. Asentamiento Prehispánico del Valle del Rímac. Boletín de Lima XXII
(119-122): 93-290. Editorial Los Pinos. Lima.
478
Ravines, Rogger, Helen Engelstad, Victoria Palomino and Daniel Sandweiss
1982 Materiales arqueológicos de Garagay. Revista del Museo Nacional XLVI: 135–233.
Lima
Regal, Alberto
1961 Historia del Real Felipe del Callao (1746-1900). Colegio Leoncio Prado. Callao.
1967 Castilla constructor: las obras de ingeniería de Castilla. Instituto Libertador Castilla.
Lima.
Reindel, Markus and Johny Isla
2006 Evidencias de Culturas Tempranas en los Valles de Palpa, Costa Sur del Perú.
Lima.
Rick, John W; Christian Mesia, Daniel Contreras, Silvia R. Kembel, Rosa M. Rick, Matthew
Sayre and John Wolf
2009 La Cronología de Chavín de Huántar y sus Implicancias para el Periodo Formativo.
Lima.
Rodríguez, Aurelio
1999 Excavaciones en Huaca Túpac Amaru B: un Complejo de Arquitectura Monumental de
la Cultura Lima. Valle del Rímac, Costa Central del Perú. Tesis de licenciatura.
479
Rodríguez, Aurelio and Humberto Córdova
1996 Informe Final de los Trabajos en el Sitio “Huaca 20”- Campus de la PUCP,
Temporada 1996. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Romero, Carlos
1936 “El Callao Desde sus Orígenes más Remotos Hasta el Siglo XVI”. Diario El Comercio.
Lima.
Rosas, Hermilio
1970 La Secuencia Cultural del Período Formativo en Ancón. Tesis para optar el grado de
Bachiller en Arqueología. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, María
1972 Breve Ensayo Sobre el Señorío de Ychma o Ychima. Arqueología PUC 13: 37-51.
1977 Etnía y sociedad: Costa peruana prehispánica. IEP. Lima.
1978 Señoríos indígenas de Lima y Canta. IEP. Lima
1981-1982 Dos probanzas de Don Gonzalo: curaca de Lima (1555-1559). Revista Histórica
33: 105-173. Lima.
1990 Tasa y Tributo del Curacazgo de Lima (1549). Historia y Cultura 18: 110-113. Museo
Nacional de Historia. Lima.
480
1999 El Señorío de Pachacámac. El informe de Rodrigo Cantos de Andrade de 1573. Banco
Central de Reserva del Perú. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lima.
Rowe, John
1944 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Cuzco. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology 27 (2). Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
1962 Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 18 (1): 40-54.
1963 Urban Settlements in Ancient Peru. Nawpa Pacha 1: 1-27.
1965 An Interpretation of Radiocarbon Measurements on Archaeological Samples from Peru.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, Radiocarbon and Tritium Dating:
187-198. Washington State University. Washington.
Rowe, John H.; Donald Collier and Gordon R. Willey
1950 Reconnaissance Notes on the Site of Huari, near Ayacucho, American Antiquity 16 (2):
120-137. Society for American Archaeology.
Sánchez Rubio, Rocío; Isabel Testón Núñez y Carlos M. Sánchez Rubio
2004 Imágenes de un Imperio Perdido. El Atlas del Marques de Heliche. Presidencia de la
Junta de Extremadura.
481
Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Juan de
1993 Relación de Antigüedades deste Reyno del Piru. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos -
Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos "Bartolomé de Las Casas". Cusco.
Santillán, Hernando de
1968 Relación del Origen, Descendencia, Politica y Gobierno de los Incas. Biblioteca de
Autores Españoles Tomo 209: 97-149. Ediciones Atlas. Madrid.
Schreiber, Katharina
1992 Wari Imperialism in Middle Horizon Peru. Anthropological Papers. University of
Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
1999 Regional Approaches to the Study of Prehistoric Empires. Examples from Ayacucho
and Nasca, Peru. Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas. Fifty years since Virú:
160-171. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington.
2012 The Rise of an Andean Empire. Wari. Lords of the Ancient Andes: 31-45. Thames &
Hudson.
Segura, Rafael
2001 Rito y Economía en Cajamarquilla. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
2004 La Cerámica Lima en los albores del Horizonte Medio y Algunas Notas para el Debate.
Puruchuco. Un Homenaje a Arturo Jiménez Borja: 97-117. CONCYTEC. Lima.
482
Segura, Rafael and Izumi Shimada
2010 The Wari Footprint on the Central Coast. A view from Cajamarquilla and Pachacamac.
Beyond Wari Walls. Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru: 113-135.
University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.
Segura, Vicente
1948 La Waka Pando. Revista del Museo Nacional de Antropología y Arqueología II (2): 89-
92. Lima.
Sestieri, Pellegrino
1964 "Excavations at Cajamarquilla, Peru". Archaeology 17 (1). Brattleboro.
Shady, Ruth
1982a La Cultura Nievería y la Interacción Social en el Mundo Andino en la Época Huari.
Arqueológicas 19. Museo Nacional de Antropología y Arqueología. Lima.
1982b La Huaca Maranga del Período Formativo. Boletín del Museo de Arqueología y
Antropología 8: 27-31. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Antropología. Lima.
1988 La Época Huari como Interacción de las Sociedades Regionales. Revista Andina 11:
121-133. Centro Bartolomé de las Casas. Cusco.
2001 Proyecto Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Huaca San Marcos de la Antigua Ciudad
de Maranga. Informe Anual Temporada 2000-2001. Informe presentado al Instituto
Nacional de Cultura. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
483
2006 Americas First City? The Case of Late Archaic Caral. Andean Archaeology III. North
and South (Edited by William H. Isbell and Helaine Silverman): 28-66. Springer.
Shady, Ruth; Fernando Herrera and José Pinilla
1982 Trabajos Arqueológicos en el Terreno Asignado al Nuevo Local del Museo Nacional de
Antropología y Arqueología. Boletín del Museo de Arqueología y Antropología 8: 52-
53. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Antropología. Lima.
Shady, Ruth and José Joaquín Narváez
1999 La Huaca San Marcos de la Antigua Ciudad de Maranga. Museo de Arqueología y
Shady, Ruth, José Joaquín Narváez and Sonia López
2000 La antigüedad del uso del quipu como escritura: las evidencias de la huaca San Marcos.
Boletín del Museo de Arqueología y Antropología 3 (10): 2–23. Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos. Lima, Lima.
Shimada, Izumi
1991 Pachacamac Archaeology: Retrospect and Prospect. Introduction to new edition of
Pachacamac by Max Uhle (1903): XV-LXVI. University Museum Press, University of
Pennsylvania.
484
Shimada, Izumi; Crystal Barker Schaaf; Lonnie G. Thompson and Ellen Mosley Thompson
1991 Cultural Impacts of Severe Droughts in the Prehistoric Andes: Application of a 1,500-
Year Ice Core Precipitation Record. World Archaeology 22 (3): 247-270. Taylor &
Francis, Ltd.
Shimada, Izumi; Rafael Segura Llanos, David J. Goldstein, Kelly J. Knudson, Melody Shimada,
Ken-Ichi Shinoda, Mai Takigami and Ursel Wagner.
2010 Un Siglo Después de Uhle: Reflexiones sobre la Arqueología de Pachacamac y Perú.
Max Uhle (1856-1944). Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras: 109-150. Fondo
Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Silva, Jorge
1989 Pueblos Prehispánicos Tardíos en el Bajo Rímac: Vestigios Encontrados en La Perla.
Historia Chalaca 2 (1): 63-78.
1990 Excavaciones Arqueológicas en el Campus de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Informe presentado al Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Lima.
1992 Ocupaciones Postformativas en el Valle del Rímac. Huachipa-Jicamarca. Pachacamac
1 (1): 49-74. Museo de la Nación. Lima.
Marcos: Sectores 9 (Biología) y 11(Ciencias Sociales). Informe presentado al
Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Lima.
485
1996 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Chillon River Valley, Peru. A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy (Anthropology).
The University of Michigan.
Marcos: Sectores 9, 11(Temporada 1996). Informe correspondiente a la segunda
temporada de 1992 presentado al Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Lima.
Silva, Jorge and Rubén García
1997 Huachipa-Jicamarca: Cronología y Desarrollo Sociopolítco en el Rímac. Bulletin de
l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 26(2): 195-228. Lima.
Silva, Jorge and Cecilia Jaime
2005 Etnoarqueología del Bajo Rímac y el Callao Prehispánico. Investigaciones Sociales IX
(15): 29-42. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Silva Sifuentes, Jorge; Juan Paredes and Cecilia Jaime
1993 El Patrimonio Arqueológico en el Campus de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Alma Mater 6: 69-83. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Silverman, Helaine
2002 Ancient Nasca Settlement and Society. University of Iowa Press.
2009 Comparaciones y Contrastes entre la Costa Sur y Central Durante el Formativo.
Arqueología del Periodo Formativo en la Cuenca Baja de Lurín. Volumen 1:429-490.
486
Squier, E. George
1877 Peru. Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas. Harper & Brothers,
Publishers. New York.
Stanish, Charles
2001 The Origin of State Societies in South America. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.
30: 41-64.
Stevenson, W.B.
1829 Descriptive Narrative of Twenty Years of Residence in South America. Longman, Rees,
Orme, Brown and Green. Liverpool.
Steward, Julian H.
1956 Cultural Evolution. Scientific American 194 (5): 69-80.
1970 Cultural Evolution in South America. The Social Anthropology in South America.
Essays in Honor of Ralph Leon Beals: 199-223. Latin American Center. University of
California. Los Angeles.
Steward, Julian H. and Louis C. Faron
1959 Native Peoples of South America. MacGraw-Hill Book Company INC.
Stothert, Karen
1980 The Villa Salvador Site and the Beginning of the Early Intermediate Period in the Lurin
Valley, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:279- 295.
487
Strong, William
1925 The Uhle Collections from Ancon. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology. 21 (4): 135-190. University of California Press. Berkeley,
California.
Strong, William Duncan
1925 The Uhle Pottery Collections from Ancon. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 21 (4): 135-190. The University of California
Press. Berkeley, California.
Strong, William Duncan and John M. Corbett
1943 A Ceramic Sequence at Pachacámac. Columbia Studies in Archaeology and Ethnology I
(2): 27-121.Columbia University Press.
Stumer, Louis M.
1953 Playa Grande. Primitive Elegance in Pre-Tiahuanaco Peru. Archaeology. 6 (1): 42-48.
Society for American Archaeology.
1954 Population Centers of the Rimac Valley of Peru. American Antiquity 20 (2): 130-148.
Society for American Archaeology.
1957 Cerámica Negra del Estilo Maranga. Revista del Museo Nacional XXVI: 272-289.
Lima.
1958 Contactos Foráneos en la Arquitectura de la Costa Central. Revista del Museo Nacional
XXVII: 11-30. Lima.
488
Tabío, Ernesto
1965 Excavaciones en la Costa Central del Perú 1955-1958. Departamento de Antropología.
Academia de Ciencias de la República de Cuba. La Habana.
Tello, Julio C.
1929 Antiguo Perú. Primera Época. Comisión Organizadora del Segundo Congreso
Sudamericano de Turismo. Lima.
1940 Orígenes y Desarrollo de las Civilizaciones Prehistóricas Andinas. Actas y Trabajos
Científicos del XXVII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. 1: 589-720. Lima.
1943 Discovery of the Chavin Culture in Peru. American Antiquity IX (1): 135-160.
Menasha, Wisconsin
1959 Paracas: Primera Parte. Gráfica T. Scheuch. Lima.
1960 Chavín. Cultura Matriz de la Civilización Andina. Primera Parte. Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
1999 Arqueología del Valle de Lima. Cuadernos de Investigación del Archivo Tello N° 1.
Lima.
Tello, Julio C. and Toribio Mejía Xesspe
1979 Paracas. Segunda Parte: Cavernas y Necrópolis. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos. Lima.
489
Topic, Theresa L. and John R. Topic
1986 El Horizonte Medio en Huamachuco. Revista del Museo Nacional 47:12-52. Lima.
2001 Hacia un Entendimiento del Fenómeno Wari: una Perspectiva Norteña. Huari y
Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias Primera Parte: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 4:
181-217. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
2010 Contextualizing the Wari-Huamachuco Relationship. Beyond Wari Walls. Regional
Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru: 188-212. University of New Mexico Press.
Albuquerque.
Trigger, Bruce G.
2003 Understanding Early Civilizations. Cambridge University Press.
Uhle, Max
1903 Pachacamac. Report of the William Pepper, M.D., LL.D., Peruvian Expedition of 1896.
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
1906 “Los Kjoekknmöeddings del Perú”. En: Revista Histórica. Órgano del Instituto
Histórico del Perú. Tomo I, Nº 1, pp. 3-23. Lima.
1998 Acerca de las Culturas Tempranas de Lima y sus Alrededores. Max Uhle y el Perú
Antiguo: 231-254. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
Unanue, Hipolito
1801 Discurso Histórico sobre el Nuevo Camino al Callao.
490
Unkel, Ingmar and Bernd Kromer
2009 The Clock in the Corn Cob: On the Development of a Chronology of the Paracas and
Nasca Period Based on Radiocarbon Dating. New Technologies for Archaeology
Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru: 207-231-244. Springer.
Valladolid, Clide
1992 Huallamarca. Pachacámac 1 (1): 133-134. Museo de La Nación. Lima.
Vallejo, Francisco
2004 El Estilo Ychsma: Características Generales, Secuencia y Distribución Geográfica.
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 33(3): 595-642. Lima.
2009 La Problemática de la Cerámica Ychsma: El Estado de la Situación y Algunos
Elementos de Discusión. Revista Chilena de Antropología 20: 133-168. Facultad de
Ciencias Sociales Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
Vásquez de Espinosa, Antonio
1948 Compendio y Descripción de las Indias Occidentales. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections Volume 10. Smithsonian Institution. Washington.
Vetter, Luisa M.
2011 Las huacas Pando: un Acercamiento a la Orfebrería Precolombina del Valle de Rímac,
Perú. Arqueología Peruana: homenaje a Mercedes Cárdenas: 207-245. Instituto Riva-
Agüero-Centro Cultural de San Marcos. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima.
491
Villacorta, Luis Felipe
2010 Huaca Huantinamarca. Arqueología y Transformación urbana en la Lima del siglo
XXI. Grupo San José. Lima.
Villar, Pedro
1935 Las Culturas Pre-hispánicas del Departamento de Lima. Lima.
1938 Arqueología del Callao. Boletín del Clase. Vl (8): 438-449. Dirección de Prensa y
Propaganda Militar del Ministerio de Guerra., Lima.
1942 Las ruinas de Ascona. Revista Histórica 15: 248-255. Lima.
Watanabe, Shinya
2001 Wari y Cajamarca. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 5: 531-541. Pontificia Universidad
Wiesse, Carlos
1913 Las Civilizaciones Primitivas del Perú. Apuntes para un Curso Universitario. El
Lucero. Lima.
Willey, Gordon R.
1943 A Supplement to the Pottery Sequence at Ancon. Columbia Studies in Archaeology and
Ethnology I (4): 201-215.Columbia University Press.
1951 The Chavin Problem: A Review and Critique. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7
(2): 103-144. Albuquerque.
492
1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valleys, Perú. Smithsonian Institution
Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 135. Washington.
Willey, Gordon and John Corbett
1943 Early Ancon and Early Supe Culture. Columbia Studies in Archeology and
Ethnology III. Columbia University Press. New York.
Williams, Carlos
1980 Complejos de Pirámides con Planta en U. Revista del Museo Nacional XLIV: 95-110.
Museo Nacional de la Cultura Peruana. Lima.
Williams, Carlos, Luis Palacios, Lía Pérez, Daniel Guerrero y Jonathan Palacios
1989 Registro y Localización de Sitios Arqueológicos. Inventario del Patrimonio
Monumental Inmueble. Valles del Chillón, Rímac y Lurín. Segunda etapa. Facultad de
Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Arte. Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Fundación Ford.
Lima.
Wilson, David J.
1983 The Origins and Development of Complex Prehispanic Society in the Lower Santa
Valley: Implications for Theories of State Origins. Journal of Anthropological Theory
2:209-276.
493
1990 Full-Coverage Survey in the Lower Santa Valley: Implications for Regional Settlement
Pattern Studies on the Peruvian Coast. The Archaeology of Regions: The Case for Full-
Coverage Regional Survey, 117-145. S. Fish and S. Kowalewski, editors, Washington.
Smithsonian Institution Press.
1999 Indigenous South Americans of the Past and Present: an Ecological Perspective
Westview Press.
Wittfogel, Karl
1956 The Hydraulic Civilizations. University of Chicago Press.
1959 Oriental Despotism: a Comparative Study of Total Power. Yale University Press. New
Haven, Connecticut.
Wurster, Wolfgang (Editor)
1999 Max Uhle (1856-1944) Pläne Archaölogischer Stäten in Andengebiet/Max Uhle (1856-
1944) Planos de Sitios Arqueológicos en el Área Andina. Materialien zur Allgemeinen
und Vergleichenden Archäologie des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Bonn
(KAVA) Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz - Berlin
Yoffee, Norman
1993 Too many chiefs? (or, safe texts for the ‘90s). Archaeology Theory. Who Sets the
Agenda: 60-78. Cambridge University Press.
2006 Myths of the Archaic State. Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations.
Cambridge University Press.
494
Zárate, Agustín de
1862 Historia del Descubrimiento y Conquista del Perú. Biblioteca de Autores Españoles.
Historiadores Primitivos de Indias. Tomo Segundo: 459-594. Madrid.
Ziolkowski, Mariusz and Robert Sadowski
1992 La Arqueoastronomía en la Investigación de las Culturas Andinas. Colección
Pendoneros 9. Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito.
495
Appendix A
Pottery Typology Analysis
A.1. Ancon Pottery Style:
A.1.1. Ware Types:
Ancon Ware 1: Brown with medium-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR ¾ (dark reddish
brown) to 2.5YR 4/4 (reddish brown). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-
rounded particles of rock between 1/4 mm to 1 mm long, accounting for 5% of the visible surface
areas of the paste. It is 2.5 in hardness in the Mohs scale and was smoothed on the external
surface but without decoration (Figure A-1).
Ancon Ware 2: Red to orange with medium-sized temper. The color varies from 10YR 6/6 a 10R
6/8 (light red). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, angular and sub-angular
particles of rock between 1/4 mm to 1 mm long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of
the paste. It is 1.5 in the Mohs hardness scale and was finely smoothed on the external surface but
without decoration. Some specimens have decoration consisting of shallow incisions and
punctations (Figure A-2).
Ancon Ware 3: Brown with large-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/4 (light reddish brown). The
inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, angular and sub-angular particles of rock between
1/4 mm and 2 mm long, although in some cases even 3 mm, accounting for 20% of the visible
surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed on the external
surface and covered with red slip, color 10R 5/6 (red) without decoration (Figure A-3).
Ancon Ware 4: Reduced with medium-sized temper. The color varies from grey1 3/N (very dark
grey) to gley14/N. The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, angular particles of rock
496
between 1/4 mm and 1 mm long, accounting between 5 to 10% of the visible surface areas of the
paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was polished on the external surface and
sometimes decorated with shallow incisions (Figure A-1).
Ancon Ware 5: Reduced with medium-sized temper. The color varies from gley1 4/N to grey
2.5/N on the external surface, although the interior surface could be 10YR 6/3 (pale brown). The
inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/6 mm and
1/4 mm long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs
hardness scale and was polished on the external surface and sometimes decorated with shallow
incisions (Figure A-4).
A.1.2 Morphological types:
There were only diagnostic fragments. Two types of vessels were identified: open vessels that
comprise dishes, open bowls, and closed vessels, comprising 5 types of neck-less pots.
Rime sherd Type 1: Dishes or open bowl rims, with divergent-convex sides, thinned on the
outside and a rounded lip. Mouth diameter is 22 cm. Sometimes those fragments have inner
decoration consisting of shallow incised straight or curved lines (Plate A-1).
Rime sherd Type 2: Dishes or open bowl rims. The sides are more divergent than in Type 1,
convex and continuous rim and rounded lip with shallow incised decoration in the interior. Mouth
diameters between 24 and 26 cm (Plate A-1).
497
Figure A-1.Neck-less pot rims Ancon ware 4 at the left and Ancon ware 1 at the right. Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa (MNAAHP).
Figure A-2. Neck-less pot rims ware Ancon 2 with red slip. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
(MNAAHP).
498
Figure A-3. Neck-less rim sherd ware Ancon 3. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (MNAAHP).
Figure A-4. Body sherd with incised decoration ware Ancon 5. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
(MNAAHP)
499
Rime sherd Type 3: Convergent sides, continuous rims with rounded lips. Mouth diameters
between 10 and 18 cm (Plate A-1).
Rime sherd Type 4: Convergent slightly convex sides, rim thickened in the interior and
sometimes on the exterior and round lip. Mouth diameters between 10 and 24 cm (Plate A-1).
Rime sherd Type 5: Convergent markedly convex sides, rim thickened in the interior and round
lip. Mouth diameters between 26 and 32 cm (Plate A-1).
Rime sherd Type 6: Convergent slightly convex sides, continuous rim and lip beveled in the
interior. Mouth diameters between 102 and 20 cm (Plate A-1).
A.1.3 Decorative types:
Type 1: Straight line (Plate A-2).
Type 2: Straight lines forming angles (Plate A-2).
Type 3: Curved lines (Plate A-2).
Type 4: Curved lines with dots (Plate A-2).
Type 5: Triangles with dots inside (Plate A-2).
Type 6: Frontal face (Plate A-2).
Type 7: Simple Triangles.
A.2. Topara Pottery Style
A.2.1 Ware Types:
Topara ware 1: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR 7/8 (orange)
to 2.5YR 4/4. The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, angular particles of rock
between 1/2 mm and 1 mm long, accounting for 20% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is
500
2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was burnished on the external surface without decoration
(Figures A-5 and A-6).
Bottle Type 1: Double-spout-and-bridge with lenticular bodies and convex bottom (Figure A-5,
Plate A-3).
Bottle Type 2: Double-spout-and-bridge with lenticular bodies and convex bottom (Figure A-6,
Plate A-3).
Bottle Type 3: Double-spout-and-bridge angled in the mid-body and convex bottom (Plate A-3).
A.3. Lima Pottery Style
A.3.1 Ware Types:
Lima Ware 1: Oxidized with large-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR 3/4 (dark reddish
brown) to 2.5 YR 4/4 (reddish brown). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-
angular and sub-rounded particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 2 mm long, accounting between
10% and 20% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and
was smoothed and in some cases burnished with dark stains due to defects during the firing.
Without decoration, in the majority of cases it is covered by soot (Figure A-7).
501
Figure A-5. Topara bottle Type 1 from Huaca La Palma (PATPAL).
Figure A-6. Topara bottle Type 2 from Huaca La Palma (PATPAL).
502
Lima Ware 2: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR 5/4 (dull
reddish Brown) to 10R 6/6 (light red). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-
angular and sub-rounded particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 1 mm long, accounting between
10% and 20% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5, although in some cases 3.5, on the
Mohs hardness scale. The external surface of the open vessels is smoothed in some cases with
burnishing marks and the interior is polished. In closed vessels, the external surface is polished
and with marks of burnishing and the interior is roughly smoothed. When it is decorated, there are
painted geometric designs in black (Gley1 3/10Y), red (10R 4/4) and white, always the exterior of
closed vessels and on the interior of open vessels (Figure A-8).
Lima Ware 3: Oxidized with large-sized temper. The color is 2.5YR 5/6 (red). The inclusions are
white, dark grey and light grey, angular and sub-angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 2
mm long, accounting for 20% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 3.5, although in some
cases 3.5, on the Mohs hardness scale. In closed vessels the external surface is usually finely
smoothed and sometimes covered by a thin slip, while the interior is roughly smoothed. In, open
vessels the external surface is smoothed and in some cases covered with burnished marks, while
the interior is polished. When it is decorated, there are painted geometric designs in black (Gley1
3/10Y), red (10R 4/4) and white, always on the exterior of closed vessels, and in the interior of
open vessels (Figure A-9).
Lima Ware 4: Oxidized with very small inclusions. The color is 5YR 7/4 (pink) without
decoration. The inclusions are white sun angular particles of rock between 1/6 and 1/8, in some
occasions 1/8 and ¼ cm long, accounting for less than 5% of the visible surface areas of the
broken paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale. It is only found in fragments of panpipes
(Figure A-10).
503
Lima Ware 5: Reduced with small inclusions. The color varies from Gley1 2.5/N (black) to 2.5Y
2.5/1 (black). The inclusions are sub-rounded and sub-angular fragments of rock colors white,
light gray and black between 1/8 and 1 mm long, accounting between 10% and 20% of the visible
surface areas of the broken paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale. Externally it is polished but
without decoration (Figure A-11).
Figure A-7. Ware Lima 1. Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM).
504
Figure A-9. Ware Lima ware 3. Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM).
Figure A-10. Ware Lima ware 4. Southern Slope Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM).
505
A.3.2 Morphological Types:
Bowl Type 1: Lenticular body with the base slightly concave, continuous rim and round lip. The
height of the vessel is 10 cm and the diameter of the mouth 10 cm (Plate A-3).
Pot Type 1: Globular body with convex base and vertical-concave neck, rim slightly thickened on
the interior and flat or rounded lips. One vessel of this type was found complete in the
Makatampu collection. It is 29 cm high and 12 cm in diameter at the mouth (Plate A-3).
Pot Type 2: Miniature pot, elongate ovoid body, convex bottom and divergent slightly convex
neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It is 9 cm high and 5 cm in diameter at the mouth 5 cm.
Lima ware 2. One specimen was found in the Makatampu collection (Plate A-3).
Jar Type 1: One specimen of this type was found incomplete in the Southern Slope of the Huaca
Aramburu. The body is wide at the shoulders and narrow towards the base, with two vertical strap
handles located below the shoulder. The neck is convergent. The body is painted in white and
black with an Interlocking design and “concentric diamonds”. On both sides, there are white
506
stripes with black borders. Although incomplete, the specimen seems to be 45 cm high with a
maximum diameter of 21 cm (Plate A-4).
Trumpet: Only one specimen was found in the Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa collection. It is a
sculpted trumpet with the representation of a fish in the body, probably a shark. The body also has
chevron painted decoration. It is 32 cm long with a diameter of 4.3 cm (Figure A-13,Plate A-4).
Rim sherd Type 1: Divergent-convex sides, slightly thinned rims, and rounded lips. The
diameters of the mouth range from 13 to 28 cm. Usually the specimens are undecorated, but when
it exists, it is in the interior with diagonal black stripes with white rims, interlocking, "teardrops",
birds, and concentric crosses (Plate A-5).
Rim sherd Type 2: The sides are more divergent than in Type 1. It has a continuous rim with
rounded lips. No decoration (Plate A-5).
Rim sherd Type 3: Belongs to an open bowl with divergent slightly convex sides with rims
slightly thickened on both sides and rounded lips. Only one specimen was found and it was
without decoration (Plate A-5).
Rim sherd Type 4: It has horizontal strap handles on the external side of a continuous rim with
round lips. The diameters of the mouth are between 11 and 22 cm. The specimens were made in
Lima ware 1 (Plate A-5).
Rim sherd Type 5: It has horizontal strap handles attached to the external part of the rim,
continuous with rounded lips. The diameters of the mouths are between 30 and 42 cm. The
specimens were made in Lima ware 1 (Plate A-5).
Rim sherd Type 6: Convex body, convergent-convex rim and round lip. The diameters of the
mouth range from 22 and 38 cm. Two specimens have a black stripe around the rim, but others
507
are undecorated. There are only fragments of the rims. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2
(Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 7: Convex body, continuous rims or slightly thickened on the interior with
rounded lips. The diameters of the mouth range from 8 to 20 cm. Could belong to closed bowls
Type 1. All the specimens have painted decoration on the exterior with the representation of black
strips, and interlocking designs. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2 (Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 8: Vertical- concave neck with rims slightly thickened and flat or rounded lips.
The diameters of the mouths range from 8 to 14 cm. All the specimens were made of Lima ware
1. Could belong to pots Type 1. All the specimens were made in Lima ware 1(Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 9: Vertical-convex necks, with rims slightly thickened in the interior and flat or
rounded lips. The diameters of the mouths range from 16 to 22 cm. All the specimens were made
in Lima ware 1(Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 10: Vertical-convex necks, rims slightly thickened in the interior and flat or
rounded lips. The diameter of the mouth is 26 cm. Painted decoration consists of white geometric
designs on black background. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2 (Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 11: Divergent necks slightly concave with continuous rim and round lip. There
is only one specimen from Huaca Aramburu, externally painted with black and white designs over
it. The mouth is 34 cm in diameter. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2 (Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 12: Vertical-concave necks with rounded lips and diameter of the mouth
between 12 and 18 cm. There are two specimens from the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu
externally decorated with concentric triangles or without decoration. Lima ware 2 (Plate A-6).
508
Rim sherd Type 13: Vertical slightly concave neck with rim slightly thinned in the interior and
round lip. It has crescent shaped painted decoration on the external side of the rim. The diameter
of the mouth is 30 cm. Lima ware 2 (Plate A-6).
Rim sherd Type 14: Divergent slightly convex neck, rim thinned in the interior and round lip.
The diameter of the mouth is 22 cm. It is painted with white and orange rings over black
background as decoration. There is only one specimen from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (Plate A-
7).
Rim sherd Type 15: Divergent-straight neck with continuous rim and round lip. The diameter of
the mouth is 16 cm. It has interlocking painted decoration on the exterior. Lima ware 2 (Plate A-
7).
Rim sherd Type 16: There is only one specimen of this type. It has divergent-concave neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip and white stripe with black rims around the body-neck joint as
painted decoration. The diameter of the mouth is 8 cm. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2
(Plate A-7).
Rim sherd Type 17: Vertical-concave neck, with continuous rim and rounded lip. The decoration
is painted and consists of horizontal parallel white or white and black lines around the joint
between the body and the neck. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2 (Plate A-7).
Rim sherd Type 18: Convergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip without
decoration. The diameter of the mouth is 8 cm. The specimens were made in Lima ware 2 (Plate
A-7).
Rim sherd Type 19: Vertical-concave neck, continuous rim and rounded lip with a vertical strap
handle between the neck and the shoulder of the vessel. It has painted decoration of geometric
509
white designs over black background. Diameter of the mouth is 8 cm. The specimens were made
in Lima ware 2 (Plate A-7).
Rim sherd Type 20: Vertical-concave neck with the rim slightly thickened the exterior and
rounded lip. No decoration and the mouth has a diameter of 22 cm. The specimens were made in
Lima ware 2 (Plate A-7).
Bottom sherd Type 1: Flat base5 cm diameter in open bowls. Ware Lima 2 (Plate A-13).
Strap 01: Horizontal strap handle. Ware Lima 1.
Spoon: Only fragments of the handles of spoons were found, with painted decorations of
horizontal white and red lines. Ware Lima 2 (Plate A-13).
Pan pipes: Composed of individual tubes of different dimensions joined laterally; in some cases
they were wrapped externally with leaves. Ware Lima 4. There are only fragments and the total
dimensions are unknown (Plate A-13).
Type 1: White lines over black background (Plate A-8).
Type 2: Black stripes with white rims over natural or red background (Plate A-8).
Type 4: Red lines over black background (Plate A-8).
Type 5: Black lines over red background (Plate A-8).
Type 6: Curved red stripes with black or black and white rims (Plate A-8).
Type 7: Parallel black lines over red or natural background (Plate A-8).
Type 8: Red stripes with black or white and black rims (Plate A-9).
510
Type 9: Interlocking design in black or black and white over red background. There are three
variants: Type 9a: triangular heads; Type 9b: quadrangular heads; Type 9c: open mouths (Figure
A-12, Plate A-9).
Type 10: Black and white concentric triangles, with a black dot in the middle of the inner
triangle, over natural or red background (Plate A-9).
Type 11: Red circles with white rim over black background (Plate A-9).
Type 12: Black stripe with white rim forming angle (Plate A-10).
Type 13: Black stripe with white rim forming angle (Plate A-10).
Type 14: Red stripe with black rim and serrated white band (Plate A-10).
Type 15: Stepped design (Plate A-10).
Type 16: Fish (Plate A-10).
Type 17: Orange dots and white rings over black background (Plate A-10).
Type 18: White checkered over red background (Plate A-10).
Type 19: Red triangle with black and white rims (Plate A-10).
Type 20: White rings on curved black bands with white rims (Plate A-10).
Type 21: White rings over natural or black backgrounds (Plate A-11).
Type 22: White triangle with black rims over red background (Plate A-11).
Type 23: Curved black lines (Plate A-11).
Type 24: White areas with black rims over red background (Plate A-11).
Type 25: Concentric diamonds (Plate A-10).
Type 26: White dots over black background (Plate A-11).
Type 27: Sculpted human representation (Figure A-14) (Plate A-11).
Type 28: “tear” (Plate A-11).
511
Type 29: Bird (Plate A-11).
Type 30: Concentric crosses (Plate A-12).
Type 31: Crescent-shaped figures in the rims (Plate A-12).
Type 32: Red stripes with black rims and white rings and dots in the interior (Plate A-12).
Type 33: Sculptural snake (Plate A-12).
Type 34: White diamonds over black background (Plate A-12).
Type 35: White stripe with black rims (Plate A-12).
Type 37: Curved black stripe with White rims (Plate A-12).
Type 38: Black and white lines on natural or red background (Plate A-12).
Type 39: Red rings on black background (Plate A-12).
Type 40: White and black stripes on natural background (Plate A-13).
Type 41: White stripe over natural background (Plate A-13).
Type 42: Black stripes with White rims forming angles (Plate A-13).
Type 43: Red and white lines over red or natural background (Plate A-13).
Type 44: White ring with curved appendixes over black background (Plate A-13).
Type 45: Vertical lines with small appendixes over black background (Plate A-13).
Type 46: Parallel curved lines
Type 47: Sitting personage.
Type 48: Black area in the neck with white rim.
512
Figure A-12. H2-031. Middle Lima Sherd of an open bowl with decoration Type 9c from Huaca
Middendorf (MAAUNMSM)
Figure A-13. Middle Lima Trumpet with the representation of a shark from Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa (MNAAHP)
513
Figure A-14. Middle Lima human representation from the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)
A.4. Nieveria Pottery Style
A.4.1 Ware Types:
Nievería Ware 1: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 2.5YR 6/8 (light red). The
inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, round particles of rock between 1/8 mm and 1/4
mm long, accounting for less than 5% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the
Mohs hardness scale and was polished on the external surface and painted in black, white and red
on the natural surface Figure (A-15).
Nievería Ware 2: Reduced with small temper. It is the reduced version of ware Nieveria 1.
Externally the color is gley 2 3/1 (dark grey) and internally 10YR 4/1. The inclusions are white,
dark grey and light grey, angular particles of rock between 1/8 mm and 1/4 mm long, accounting
for less than 5% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and
is polished on the external surface (Figure A-16).
514
Nievería Ware 3: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/6 (reddish yellow).
The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and
hardness scale and usually the external surface was polished with painted decoration in white, red
and black (Figure A-17).
Nievería Ware 4: Reduced with medium-sized temper. It is the reduced version of ware Nieveria
3. The color is gley1 3/N on the exterior and 2.5Y 5/1 in the interior. The inclusions are white,
dark grey and light grey, angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm long, accounting
for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It has 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and the
external surface was polished (Figure A-18).
Close bowl Type 1: Only one specimen of this type was recovered from the Western Passage of
the Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu. It is a bowl of thickened edge on both sides and flat lip,
lenticular body, flat base, tubular handle with a water pipe on opposite sides. It has painted
decoration “Nieveria Snakes” and “alternate red and Black circles". It is 9 cm height by 17 cm in
diameter (Figure A-19, Plate A-14).
515
Figure A-15. Ware Nievería 1. Western Passage of Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM).
Figure A-16. Ware Nieveria 2. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (MNAAHP)
516
Figure A-17. Ware Nieveria 3. Western Passage. Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM).
Figure A-18. Ware Nieveria 4. Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (MNAAHP).
517
Bottle Type 1: semi-globular body with flat bottom and horizontal handle strap. Two incomplete
specimens were found in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. Wares Nieveria 2 and Nieveria 4.
Type 1: Red lines on natural background (Plate A-14).
Type 2: Sculpture fragments of an ear (Plate A-14).
Type 3: Black and red dots on natural background (Plate A-14).
Type 4: Black line over natural background (Plate A-14).
Type 5: Many black lines (Plate A-14).
Type 6: “Fleur-de-lis” (Plate A-14).
Type 7: Concentric stepped design (Plate A-15).
Type 8: Diamonds and dots (Plate A-15).
Type 9: Red and black lines (Plate A-15).
Type 10: Parallel red lines with a White line in the middle (Plate A-15).
Type 11: White and black parallel curved lines (Plate A-15).
Type 12: Interlocking (Plate A-15).
Type 13: Red band with black or black and white rim (Plate A-15).
Type 14: Nieveria Snake (Figure A-19, Plate A-16).
Type 15: Red line (Plate A-16).
Type 16: Black dots (Plate A-16).
Type 17: Sculptural cacti (Plate A-16).
Type 18: Concentric diamonds (Plate A-16).
Type 19: Black and red circles on prominent surface (Plate A-16).
Type 20: Black strip with white rim (Plate A-16).
518
Figure A-19. Nieveria Derivative closed bowl sherd from the western passage of Huaca
Aramburu (MAAUNMSM)
A.5. Wari pottery styles:
A.5.1 Wares Types:
Wari Ware 1: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/6 (orange). The inclusions
are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm
long, accounting for less than 5% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It has 2.5 on the Mohs
hardness scale and was finely smoothed or polished on the external surface with painted
decoration in black, white and red on the natural surface (Figure A-20)
Wari Ware 2: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/6 (orange). The inclusions
are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm
long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness
scale and was finely smoothed or polished on the external surface with painted decoration in
black, white and red on the natural surface (Figure A-21).
519
Wari Ware 3: Oxidized with large-sized temper. The color varies from 10YR 6/6 to 10R 6/8
(light red) The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock
between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It
is 1.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was finely smoothed on the exterior without decoration
(Figure A-22).
Wari Ware 4: reduced with medium-sized temper. The color is gley1 2.5/N (black). The
1 mm long, accounting for 5% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs
hardness scale and was polished on the external surface without decoration (Figure A-23).
Wari Ware 5: Oxidized with large-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR 3/4 (dark reddish
brown) and 2.5 YR 4/4 (reddish brown). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-
angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 2 mm long, accounting for between 10% and 20%
of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed on
the external surface without decoration, and in the majority of cases, covered by soot (Figure A-
24).
520
Figure A-20. Ware Wari 1. Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu (MAAUNMSM).
Figure A-21. Ware Wari 2 from the Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)
521
522
Figure A-24. Horizontal strap in ware Wari 5. Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM).
Open bowl Type 1: Continuous rim with divergent slightly convex sides, round lip and flat
bottom, or on occasion slightly concave. The heights of the vessels are between 4 cm and 15 cm,
with diameters at the mouth between 12 cm and 30 cm. In one case, there was an engraved mark
in the interior side, and in another case an X engraved mark on the external side of the bottom. It
also has painted designs of vertical white stripes, stepped design or without decoration (Plate A-
17).
Open Bowl Type 2: Continuous rim with rounded lip. The sides are divergent-convex with flat
base. In the interior it has geometric painted designs. It is 7 cm high with a mouth diameter of 15
cm (Plate A-17).
Open Bowl Type 3: Divergent-convex sides with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has three
hollow legs with small stones in the interior that sound when the vessel is shaken. It is 12 cm high
with the mouth diameter of 13 cm (Plate A-17).
523
Beaker Type 1: Divergent-convex sides with continuous rim, round lip and concave base. The
base is slightly convex without decoration. Height 7 cm with a diameter at the mouth of 9 cm
(Plate A-17).
Closed bowl Type 1: Convergent-convex sides, continuous rim and round lip, and concave base.
Height 7 cm with a mouth diameter of 10 cm (Plate A-18).
Pot Type 1: Convergent-convex sides, continuous rim and round lip with two horizontal straps on
the border, convex base with three hallow legs with small stones inside that sound when it is
shaken. Height 19 cm and the diameter of the mouth is 14 cm (Figure A-27 and Plate A-18).
Jar Type 1: Jar with the shape of a mammary gland, without handles, divergent-concave neck
with continuous rim and round lip. It is 28 cm high with a mouth diameter of 4 cm. There is only
one specimen from Makatampu with a painted decoration on the body, the “Chakipampa serpent”
(Figure A-25, Plate A-18).
Rim sherd Type 1: Divergent slightly convex sides with continuous rim and round lip. The
diameter of the mouth ranges between 14 and 21 cm. The interior wall is polished and the exterior
smoothed. In some cases, there is a painted decoration Type 7 or 20. Those rims belong to dishes
or open bows Type 1 (Plate A-19).
Rim sherd Type 2: Divergent-straight sides with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter
of the mouth is between 16 and 44 cm. Undecorated (Plate A-19).
Rim sherd Type 3: Divergent-convex sides with continuous rim and rounded lip and flat base.
On the exterior there are painted decoration type 15 and 16. The diameter of the mouth is 16 cm.
It could belong to open bowls type 2 (Plate A-19).
524
Rim sherd Type 4: Should be part of some open bowl. Divergent-straight sides, continuous rim
and round lip. It has painted decoration type 17 on the exterior, and 18 on the interior. Diameter of
the mouth is 16 cm (Plate A-19).
Rim sherd Type 5: Is part of an open bowl with divergent sides and slightly thickened in the
interior and round lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the rim. The diameter of the mouth is
34 cm (Plate A-19).
Rim sherd Type 6: Probably belongs to beakers with divergent-straight sides, continuous rim and
round lip. The diameters of the mouths are between 10 and 12 cm. It has painted decoration on the
exterior, types 8, 12, 17, and 28 (Plate A-19).
Rim sherd Type 7: Belongs to open bowls with convergent-convex sides, continuous rim, and
rounded lip. It has painted decoration in panels with the representation Type 28 (Plate A-19).
Rim sherd Type 8: Belongs to a jar with composite neck, continuous border and rounded lip with
a diameter of the mouth of 6 cm (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 9: Belongs to a jar of vertical slightly concave neck with continuous border and
round lip. Diameter of the mouth is 6 cm (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 10: Belongs to a pot or jar with convergent slightly convex neck, continuous
border and round lip. One specimen was found in the West passage in Platform 2 of Huaca
Aramburu with painted decoration Type 1. The diameter of the mouth is 10 cm (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 11: Belongs to a jar or pot with divergent slightly concave, rim folded towards
the exterior and rounded lip. The exterior has decoration Type 4 (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 12: Belongs to a pot or jar. It has a vertical slightly concave neck, slightly
thickened rims in both sides and round lips. The diameter of the mouth is 10 cm. Undecorated
(Plate A-20).
525
Rim sherd Type 13: Belongs to a pot with a short neck, divergent-convex, continuous rim and
rounded lip. The diameter of the mouth is 28 cm (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 14: Belongs to a short divergent-concave neck pot, with continuous rim and
Rim sherd Type 15: Belongs to a short neck, divergent slightly convex, with continuous rim and
round lip with two vertical strap handles from shoulder to the neck. The diameter of the mouth is
22 cm (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 16: Belongs to a pot or jar with divergent-straight neck with slightly thickened
rim and rounded lip. The diameter of the mouth is 10 cm (Plate A-20).
Rim sherd Type 17: Belongs to a pot or jar with divergent-straight neck, continuous rim and
Rim sherd Type 18: Belongs to a pot or jar with divergent-concave neck, continuous rim and
rounded lip. The diameters of the mouth are between 14 and 26 cm (Plate A-21).
Rim sherd Type 19: Belongs to a pot or jar with short divergent-straight neck, slightly thinned
rim in the exterior and round lip. The diameter of the mouth is 30 cm (Plate A-21).
Rim sherd Type 20: Belongs to a big pot or jar, neck slightly convergent-concave with
continuous rim and round lip. The diameters of the mouth range between 28 and 30 cm (Plate A-
21).
Rim sherd Type 21: Belongs to a big pot or jar. The neck is markedly convergent and slightly
concave, with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameters of the mouth are between 23 and 26
cm (Plate A-22).
526
Rim sherd Type 22: Belongs to a jar with vertical-straight neck and continuous rim and rounded
lip. Only one specimen was found, from the west passage of the Platform 2 in Huaca Aramburu,
with an anthropomorphic representation. The diameter of the mouth is 3 cm (Plate A-22).
Rim sherd Type 23: Belongs to a beaker or open bowl with divergent-straight sides, continuous
rim and round lip. The diameter of the mouth is 12 cm (Plate A-22).
Rim sherd Type 24: Belongs to a closed bowl Type 1, with thickened rim and flat lip and the
representation of the “Chakipampa Flower” painted on the body (Plate A-22).
Spoon sherd type 1: Continuous rim and rounded lips (Plate A-23).
Strap sherd Type 1: Horizontal strap handle (Plate A-23).
Bottom sherd Type 1: Flat base (Plate A-23).
Bottom sherd Type 2: Tripod with long hollow legs (Plate A-23).
Bottom sherd Type 3: Tripod or tetrapod with solid short legs (Plate A-23).
Pottery disc: It has 11 cm diameter (Plate A-23).
Type 1: Black stripe on the rim (Plate A-24).
Type 2: Black lines over white background (Plate A-24).
Type 3: Black dots joined together by a horizontal line (Plate A-24).
Type 4: White checkered on black background (Plate A-24).
Type 5: White lines and dots (Plate A-24).
Type 6: Stepped design (Plate A-24).
Type 7: Black sinuous line (Plate A-24).
Type 8: Black border on white background (Plate A-25).
527
Type 9: Chevrons (Plate A-25).
Type 10: “Bag” (Plate A-25).
Type 11: Human representation (Figure A-28, Plate A-25).
Type 12: “Split-faced band” (Plate A-26).
Type 13: “hands” (Plate A-26).
Type 14: Radial design (Plate A-26).
Type 15: Black curvilinear designs on white background (Plate A-26).
Type 16: White rings on a red background (Plate A-26).
Type 17: Condor heads. (figures A-20 and A-26).
Type 18: Fish (Plate A-26).
Type 19: Camelid head (Plate A-27).
Type 20: Camelid silhouette (Plate A-27).
Type 21: Plume (Plate A-27).
Type 22: Monster (Plate A-27).
Type 23: White checkered on red background (Plate A-27).
Type 24: Diagonal white stripes with black rims (Plate A-27).
Type 25: Engraved “U” design (Plate A-28).
Type 26: Red curved strip with black rims and black stripes in the interior on White background
(Plate A-28).
Type 27: Chakipampa snake (Figure A-25, Plate A-28).
Type 28: White spheres with black lines in the interior (Plate A-25).
Type 29: Serrated black and white stripes (Plate A-29).
Type 30: Orange stripes with black borders on a red background (Plate A-29).
528
Type 31: Chakipampa Flower (Plate A-29).
Type 32: Red stripe with black rims (Plate A-29).
Figure A-25. Wari Jar Type 1with Chakipampa Serpent design from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
Figure A-26. Wari sherd with design Type 17 from the western passage of Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)
529
Figure A-27. Wari Pot Type 1 from the Western Passage of Platform 2. Huaca Aramburu
(MAAUNMSM)
Figure A-28 Wari jar sherd with the decorative Type 22 from the Western Passage of Huaca
Aramburu (MAAUNMSM)
530
A.6 Pativilca Pottery Style:
A.6.1 Ware Type:
Pativilca 1: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color is 2.5YR 5/6 (red). The inclusions are
white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 1 mm long,
accounting for 5% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale
and was smoothed on the external surface. It has pressed decoration.
Jar Type 1: Vertical-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. Horizontal-ellipsoid
body with slightly convex base (Plate A-29).
A.6.2 Decorative type:
Type 1: Impressed design with the representation of two personages holding their hairs that turn
into serpents and have serpents emerging form their mouths (Figure A-29).
Type 2: Impressed design with the representation of two stooped felines, one in front of the other
(Figure A-30).
A.7. Three-color Geometric Pottery Style:
A.7.1 Ware Types:
Three-color Geometric Ware 1: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color is 5YR 7/8
(orange). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock between
1/4 mm and 1/2 mm long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 3.5 on
the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed and burnished. Externally has painted geometric
designs on red, white, and black (Figure A-30).
531
Three-color Geometric Ware 2: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR
5/4 (dull reddish brown) to 5YR 6/4 (dull orange). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light
grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/8 mm and 1/4 mm long, accounting for 5% of the
visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and the external surface was
smoothed, slipped, and burnished. It has painted geometric designs on red, white, and black.
Three-color Geometric Ware 3: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color varies from 2.5YR
5/4 (dull reddish brown) to 5YR 6/4 (dull orange). The inclusions are white, dark grey and light
grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/8 mm and 1/4 mm long, accounting for 5% of the
visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and the external surface was
smoothed, slipped, and burnished. It has painted geometric designs on red, white, and black.
Beaker Type 1: -Divergent-straight sides, continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the
vessel is 11 cm and diameter of the mouth 12 cm with flat base (Plate A-30).
Beaker Type 2: Divergent-convex side, continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel
is 12.4 cm, and diameter of the mouth 15 cm with flat base (Plate A-30).
Beaker Type 3: Sculptural vase with the representation of a human face in the body of the vessel.
Divergent slightly concave sides, with continuous rim and rounded lips (Figure A-31 and Plate A-
30).
Beaker Type 4: Divergent-straight sides, with continuous rim and rounded lip. It is attached to a
sculptural human representation by two tubular bridges, one of which has a hole for whistle
(Figure A-35 and Plate A-30).
Pot Type 1: Angled lenticular body, composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip with flat
base. The height of the vessel is 11 cm and diameter of the mouth 10 cm (Plate A-30).
532
Pot Type 2: Ellipsoid body, divergent-convex neck and continuous rim with rounded lip. It has
two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck and flat base. The height of the vessel is 16 cm
and the mouth a diameter of 9 cm (Plate A-30).
Pot Type 3: Globular body, neck slightly composite, continuous rim and rounded lip. Convex
base and no handles. The height of the vessel is 13 cm, and the diameter of the mouth 7.3 cm
(Plate A-30).
Pot Type 4: Ellipsoidal body, with pedestal, continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the
vessel is 8 cm and diameter of the mouth 5 cm (Plate A-30).
Jar Type 1: Ovoid body, composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical
strap handles in the equator of the body. The height of the vessel is 22 cm, diameter of the mouth
7 cm.
Jar Type 2: Ovoid body, composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the
vessel is 15 cm and diameter of the mouth 6 cm. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders
to neck and convex base.
Jar Type 3: Globular body, vertical-convex neck with two vertical strap handles from shoulders
to neck. The height of the vessel is 18 cm and diameter of the mouth 6 cm (Figure A-36).
Jar Type 4: Lenticular body with convex base. Vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The height of the vessel is 11 cm
and diameter of the mouth 4cm (Plate A-31).
Jar Type 5: Sculpted body with the representation of a sitting personage. Divergent-convex neck
with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 21 cm, diameter of the mouth 9
cm (Plate A-31).
533
Jar Type 6: Canteen-shape body, neck divergent-concave, continuous rim and rounded lip. It has
two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is between 19 and 20
cm, diameter of the mouth 8 cm (Plate A-31).
Jar Type 7: Angled or globular body with divergent-concave neck, continuous rim and rounded
lip. Flat base with two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. It is 15 cm high and the
mouth a diameter of 8 cm (Plate A-32).
Jar Type 8: Ovoid body, with vertical-convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip with convex
base and two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is of the
vessels between 14 and 17 cm and diameters of the mouth between 5 and 6 cm (Plate A-32).
Jar Type 9: Ellipsoid body with convex base, and vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two vertical strap-handles from shoulder to neck. The height of the vessel is h
of the vessel 14 cm and diameter of the mouth 5 cm (Plate A-32).
Jar Type 10: Canteen-shape body with vertical-convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It
has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is 17 cm, diameter
of the mouth 7 cm (Plate A-32).
Jar Type 11: Ovoid body with convex base, composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It
has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The height of the vessel is 12 cm and diameter of
the mouth 4.5 cm (Plate A-32).
Jar Type 12: Sculpted jar from Makatampu representing a sitting personage playing a panpipe.
The height of the vessel is 23 cm. The rim is broken (Figure A-33, Plate A-32).
Jar Type 13: Canteen-shape body with convex base, composite neck, continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is
17 cm. The rim is broken (Plate A-33).
534
Jug Type 1: Ellipsoid or globular body, divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded
lip. It has one vertical strap handle from shoulders to the neck and a sculpted monkey in the joint
between the body and the neck. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 17 cm and the
mouth diameters between 6 and 8 cm (Figure A-33, Plate A-33).
Jug Type 2: Ovoid body, with divergent-concave neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It has
one vertical strap handle from shoulders to neck and a sculpted bird in the joint between the body
and the neck. The height of the vessel is 18 cm and the diameter of the mouth 5.5 cm (Plate A-
33).
Bottle Type 1: Stirrup spout bottle with ellipsoid body, slightly angled in the equator, and convex
base. It has two small additional tubular and vertical handles from the stirrup spout to the neck.
The height of the vessel is 24 cm and the diameter of the mouth 5 cm (Plate A-33).
Type 1: Horizontal red stripe with black rim.
Type 2: Horizontal white stripe with black rims divided into panels each one with a black dot in
the inside.
Type 3: Diagonal red stripes with white rims and white dots in the interior.
Type 4: Red triangles with white rims and white dots in the inside.
Type 5: Sculpted human face.
Type 6: Sculpted human representation.
Type 7: Panels bordered with white stripes with black rims, and white dots with black rims.
Type 8: Concentric crescent-shaped design on the rim.
Type 9: Red stripes with black rims forming angles.
Type 10: White diamonds with crossed black rims in the inside with black dots in the exterior.
535
Type 11: White stepped design on black background with black circles and black dot in the
inside.
Type 12: Panels shaped by vertical red lines and sinuous black lines in the inside.
Type 13: Vertical white strips with black rims.
Type 14: Sculpted monkey.
Type 15: White stepped crosses with black rim with black dot in the inside.
Type 16: White stepped crosses with black rim with white dot in the inside.
Type 17: White stripes crossed with black rims on red background.
Type 18: White stripes with black rims with black dots on red background.
Type 19: Painted human frontal representation.
Type 20: Panel de franjas blancas diagonales con borde negro y reticulado de líneas negras sobre
fondo rojo.
Type 21: Zoomorphic representation with long sinuous body.
Type 22: Black small “tracks” on white background.
Type 23: Circular white stripe with black rims with black dots in the inside and inner circle with
black triangles and dots.
Type 24: Red stepped diagonal stripe with white rims and white dots in the inside.
Type 25: Red curve stripe with serrated black rims.
Type 26: Circle divided in triangular sections with dots with white strip and black rim.
536
Figure A-31. Three-color Geometric beaker Type 3 ware 2 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
Figure A-32. Three-color Geometric stirrup-spout bottle ware 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
537
Figure A-33. Three-color Geometric Jug Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
Figure A-34. Three-color Geometric Jar Type 12 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
538
Figure A-35. Three-color Geometric Beaker Type 4 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
Figure A-36. Three-color Geometric Jar Type 3 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
539
A.8. Ychsma Pottery Style:
A.8.1 Ware Types:
Ychsma Ware 1: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/4 (light reddish). The
hardness scale and was smoothed and in some cases burnished and mostly without decoration.
When decorated, it has brushstrokes in white 2.5 Y 8/3 (pale yellow) and in some cases ceramic
bottoms or cones attached to the external surface. This ware was used to make pots, jars and big
jars, and figurines (Figure A-37)
Ychsma Ware 2: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color is 2.5YR 6/8 (light reddish).
The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-rounded particles of rock between 1/4 mm
and 1 mm long, accounting between 10% and 20% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is
between 2.5 and 3.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed and in some cases burnished
and mostly without decoration. When decorated, it has brushstrokes in white 2.5 Y 8/3 (pale
yellow). Sometimes there are also brushstrokes in red and burnished marks leaving a patron of
diagonal crossed lines. This ware was used to make pots, jars and big jars, and figurines (Figure
A-38).
Ychsma Ware 3: Oxidized with large-sized temper. The color ranges from 2.5YR 6/4 (light
reddish) to 2.5YR 6/8 (orange) The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-rounded
particles of rock between 1/4 mm and 2 mm long, accounting between 10% of the visible surface
areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed and in some cases
burnished and mostly without decoration. When decorated, it has brushstrokes in white 2.5 Y 8/3
(pale yellow). This ware was used to make pots, jars and big jars (Figure A-39).
540
Ychsma Ware 4: Oxidized with medium-sized temper. The color is 2.5YR 6/4 (light reddish).
The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/4 mm
and 1 mm long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs
hardness scale and was smoothed in the exterior surface without decoration. On occasions it is
covered by soot. This ware was used to make pots and jars (Figure A-40).
Ychsma Ware 5: Oxidized with large-sized temper. The color is 2.5YR 6/4 (light reddish). The
1 mm long, accounting for 10% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs
hardness scale and was smoothed in the exterior surface without decoration. In occasions it is
covered by soot. This ware was used to make pots and jars (Figure A-41).
Ychsma Ware 6: Reduced with medium-sized temper. The color is 2.5Y 3/1 (very dark gray) on
the external surface. The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-angular particles of
rock between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm long, accounting for 5% of the visible surface areas of the
paste. It is 3.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed, burnished and in occasions polished
without paint although in occasions it has incised simple designs. This ware was used to make
pots, jars and figurines (Figure A-42).
Ychsma Ware 7: Reduced with small-sized temper. The color is 2.5Y 3/1 (very dark gray) in the
external surface. The inclusions are white, black and red, sub-rounded particles of rock between
the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed, burnished and on occasions polished without paint,
although some specimens have incised simple designs. This ware was used to make pots, jars and
figurines (Figure A-43).
541
Ychsma Ware 8: Oxidized with very small-sized temper. The color is 7.5YR 6/4 (dull orange).
The inclusions are white, black and red, sub-rounded and sub-angular particles of rock between
the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed, in the surface without decoration. This ware was used
to make pots and jars
Ychsma Ware 9: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/6 (light orange). The
inclusions are white, black, sub-angular particles of rock between 1/8 mm and 1/4 mm long,
accounting for less than 5% of the visible surface areas of the paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness
scale and was smoothed, burnished and slipped 7.5YR 6/3 (brown) and painted in brown 10YR
8/4 (very pale brown) in brushstrokes (Figure A-44).
Ychsma Ware 10: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is between 2.5YR 6/6 (light red)
and 7.5YR 7/3 (pink) The inclusions are white, black, sub-angular particles and sub-rounded of
rock between 1/4 mm and 1 mm long, accounting between 5% and 10% of the visible surface
areas of the paste. It is between 1.5 and 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed, but
without decoration.
Open bowl Type 1: Convex sides, continuous rim and rounded lip. It is 6 cm high and the
diameter of the mouth is 18 cm (Plate A-34)
Open bowl Type 2: Convex sides with a slight inflexion in the rim towards the interior. Round
lips and convex base. It is between 4 and 7 cm high and the diameters of the mouth between 6 and
9 cm (Plate A-34).
542
Figure A-37. Early Ychsma Pot Type 88 Ware 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
Figure A-38. Ychsma pot Type 105 Ware 2 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
543
Figure A-39. Ychsma Jar Type 13 Ware 3 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
Figure A-40. Ychsma pot Type 29 Ychsma Ware 4 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
544
Figure A-42. Ychsma Jug Type 7 Ware 6 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
545
Figure A-44. Ychsma Ware 9 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
546
Beaker Type 1: Conic frustum body, flat base and sides divergent-straight and rounded lip. It is 6
cm high and a diameter of the mouth between 7 and 13 cm (Plate A-34).
Closed bowl Type 1: Convex sides, continuous rim and rounded lip and a convex base. The
heights of the vessel are between 5 and 6 cm, and diameters of the mouth between 7 and 8 cm
(Plate A-34).
Closed bowl Type 2: Convex sides, continuous border and round lip with a slight ledge towards
the exterior. The heights of the vessel are between 3 and 7 cm and diameters of the mouth
Closed bowl Type 3: Convex sides, rim slightly divergent and rounded lip. It has two horizontal
strap handles on the shoulders and a convex base. It is 10 cm and a diameter of the mouth of 13
cm (Plate A-34).
Closed bowl Type 4: Open bowl with convex sides, continuous rim and rounded lip. Convex
base with two small vertical strap handles from shoulders to lip. It is 3 cm high and 6 cm mouth
diameter (Plate A-34).
Closed bowl Type 5: Hemispheric body without handles with divergent slightly concave neck,
continuous rim and round lip. The height of the vessel is 12 cm and diameter of the mouth 12 cm
(Plate A-34).
Closed bowl Type 6: Hemispheric body with short divergent straight neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles at the equator. It is 6 cm high and 7 cm diameter
of the mouth (Plate A-34).
Closed bowl Type 7: Hemispheric body with convex base and two appendicxes on the border on
opposite sides. It is 5cm high and a diameter of the mouth of 9cm (Plate A-34).
547
Pot Type 1: Neck-less pot with convex sides, continuous rim, and rounded lip. Convex base
without handles. It is between 13 and 18 cm high and a mouth diameter between 17 and 22 cm
(Plate A-35).
Pot Type 2: Miniature neck-less pot with convex sides, rim slightly thickened in the interior, and
rounded lip. Convex base without handles. It is between 6 and 8 cm high and a mouth diameter
Pot Type 3: Neck-less pot with convex sides, continuous rim, and rounded lip. Sometimes it has
ceramic conical appendixes attached to the rim. Convex base without handles. It is between 11
and 18 cm high and a mouth diameter between 11 and 13 cm.
Pot Type 4: Miniature neck less pot with convex sides, continuous rim, and rounded lip and
convex base. The body is painted externally with white. It has a mouth diameter between 6 and 3
cm (Plate A-35).
Pot Type 5: Pot with ovoid shape and convex base, continuous rim and round lip, without
handles. One of the specimens of this type has a sculpted body in the shape of a cucurbit with the
rim painted in white. The heights of the vessel are between 12 and 13 cm, and the diameters of the
mouth between 6 and 7 cm (Plate A-35).
Pot Type 6: Ovoid body without handles and convex base. Continuous rim and rounded lip. It is
between 12 and 19 cm high and the mouth diameters between 10 and 11 cm.
Pot Type 7: Sculpted ovoid body, apparently with the representation of a bird, without handles
and pedestal base. The height of the vessel is 12 cm and the diameter of the mouth 8 cm. (Plate A-
36)
Pot Type 9: Ovoid or spherical body, vertical-concave neck, continuous border and round lip. In
occasions, there are ceramic conical appendixes attached to the middle part of the body. The
548
heights of the vessel are between 16 and 26 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 8 and 15
cm (Plate A-36).
Pot Type 10: Ovoid body with convex base and wide mouth. It has two vertical strap handles
between the equator and the shoulders. It is between 11 and 25 cm high and the diameter of the
Pot Type 11: Ovoid body shape in one case with the representation of a cucurbit, vertical-
concave neck, continuous rim and round lip. It is between 10 and 15 cm and the diameter of the
mouth 9 cm (Plate A-37).
Pot Type 12: Sculpted body in the shape of a sitting personage with the arms tied in the back.
Convex base, continuous rim and round lip. It is 18 cm high and the mouth 9cm in diameter (Plate
A-37).
Pot Type 13: Ovoid shaped body angled in the equator, with divergent-concave neck, continuous
rim and rounded lip. It does not have handles, although in some cases there are small applications
in shape of bottoms or cones attached to the shoulders. It is between 10 and 27 cm high and the
diameters of the mouth between 7 and 18 cm (Plate A-37).
Pot Type 14: Angled lenticular body with convex base without handles. Short neck slightly
divergent-concave, continuous rim and rounded lip. It is 9 cm high and the diameter of the mouth
Pot Type 15: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base. It is between 9 and 18 cm and the
diameter of the mouth between 7 and 12 cm (Plate A-37).
Pot Type 16: Ovoid body with neck slightly divergent-concave, with continuous rim and rounded
lip. It does not have handles. The height of the vessel is 10 cm and a diameter of the mouth 7 cm
(Plate A-37).
549
Pot Type 17: Globular or ovoid bodies, short divergent-concave neck, continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 17
cm and the diameter of the mouth between 8 and 11 cm (Plate A-38).
Pot Type 18: Ovoid or horizontal ellipsoid bodies with convex base, height vertical-concave
neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. Two vertical strap handles are located from the shoulders to
the neck. Heights of the vessels are between 11 and 19 cm and the diameter of the mouth between
6 and 12 cm (Plate A-38).
Pot Type 19: Ovoid body with convex base and two vertical strap handles from shoulder to neck.
The neck is vertical-convex, continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 23 cm
and mouth diameter 13 cm (Plate A-38).
Pot Type 20: Angled to ellipsoid body, convex or flat base with two vertical straps handles from
shoulders to neck. It has a divergent slightly concave neck, thickened rim toward the interior and
rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 10 and 13 cm and the diameters of the mouth
between 7 cm and 8 cm (Figure A-48, Plate A-38).
Pot Type 21: Globular or ovoid body with convex base, divergent-concave or divergent-straight
neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. There are two vertical straps or rounded handles from
shoulder to neck. The heights of the vessels are between 10 and 21 cm and the diameters of the
Pot Type 22: Hemispherical body with convex base, neck markedly divergent-straight or slightly
concave or convex, continuous rim and rounded lip. There are two vertical strap handles from
shoulders to neck. The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 13 cm and the diameters of the
550
Pot Type 23: Ovoid body, flat base and two vertical strap handles located between the equator to
the joint between the body and neck. The neck is divergent slightly concave, continuous rim and
rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 9 cm and diameter of the mouth 8 cm (Plate A-39).
Pot Type 24: Ovoid body with convex base and vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. There are to vertical strap handles from shoulder to neck. It is between 8 and 20 cm
high and the diameter of the mouth between 6 and 13 cm (Plate A-39).
Pot Type 25: Horizontal ellipsoid body with convex base and two vertical strap handles from
shoulders to a divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height is between
9 and 12 cm. Diameter of the mouth 6 cm (Plate A-39).
Pot Type 26: Spherical or ovoid body, in some cases slightly angled in the equator. It has
divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip with two vertical strap or rounded
handles from shoulders to neck. The heights of the vessels are between 8 and 19 cm and the
diameter of the mouths between 7 and 18 cm (Plate A-39).
Pot Type 27: Globular body with convex base and composite neck with two vertical strap handles
from shoulders to neck. It is between 9 and 19 cm high and diameters of the mouth between 6 and
14 cm (Plate A-40).
Pot Type 28: Angled body with flat base and two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. It
has a composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. Height 16 cm and diameter of the
mouth 8 cm. The lower half of the body has impressed decoration type “Goose skin” (Plate A-40).
Pot Type 29: Angled or slightly angled body with convex base and two vertical strap handles
from shoulders to neck. Composite neck and continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the
vessels are between 6 and 18 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 6 and 9 cm (Plate A-
40).
551
Pot Type 30: Spherical body with convex base and composite neck with two vertical strap
handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is 12 cm and diameter of the mouth 6 cm
(Plate A-40).
Pot Type 31: Horizontal ellipsoid body with convex base and composite neck with two vertical
strap handles from shoulders to neck. It is 16 cm high and the mouth diameter is 4 cm (Plate A-
40).
Pot Type 32: Spherical or ovoid body, with convex base and two vertical strap or rounded
handles from shoulders to lip. The height is between 9 and 20 cm and the diameters of the mouth
between 7 and 7 to 14 cm (Plate A-40).
Pot Type 33: Miniature pot with ovoid body and short divergent-concave neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. It is between 4 and 7 cm high and the diameters of the mouth between 3 and
6 cm (Plate A-41).
Pot Type 34: Horizontal ellipsoid body with convex base and composite neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulder to neck. The height of the
Pot Type 35: Ovoid or ellipsoid body with convex base, divergent straight neck, continuous rim
and rounded lip without handles. The heights of the vessels are between 8 and 19 cm and
Pot Type 36: Spherical or ovoid body, convex base with slightly composite neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 13 and 30 cm and the diameters from
12 to 20 cm (Plate A-41).
552
Pot Type 37: Spherical body with convex base and short divergent-straight neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip with two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels
are between 14 and 20 cm and diameters of the mouth between 11 and 13 cm (Plate A-41).
Pot Type 38: Spherical or ovoid body with divergent-concave neck, continuous rim and rounded
lip. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 10
and 24 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 8 and 18 cm (Plate A-41).
Pot Type 39: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base and two vertical strap handles on the
shoulders. The neck is divergent-straight, the rim continuous and rounded lips. The heights of the
42).
Pot Type 40: Angled body with convex base and divergent-concave neck, thickened rim in the
exterior and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 16 and 23 cm and the diameters
of the mouth between 12 and 13 cm (Plate A-42).
Pot Type 41: Ovoid body with convex base and two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The
neck is divergent-convex, with continuous rim and rounded lips. The height of the vessel is 16 cm
and diameter of the mouth 13 cm (Plate A-42).
Pot Type 42: Spherical or ovoid body, slightly angled, with convex base. The neck is divergent-
straight or slightly concave, with continuous border and rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap
handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 10 and 22 cm and the diameter of
the mouth between 6 and 18 cm (Plate A-42).
Pot Type 43: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base with divergent-straight neck, continuous
border and rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the
553
43).
Pot Type 44: Spherical, in some cases angled, body with convex base and one very small vertical
handle on the shoulder. The neck is divergent slightly concave, continuous rim and rounded rim.
It is between 15 and 22 cm high and the diameters of the mouth between 17 and 22 cm (Plate A-
43).
Pot Type 45: Spherical body with convex base and neck sharply divergent and slightly convex,
with continuous border and rounded lip. It has two small vertical strap handles on the shoulders.
The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 16 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 17
and 22 cm (Plate A-43).
Pot Type 46: Composite ovoid body with convex base with divergent-straight neck, continuous
rim and rounded lip. No handles. The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 12 cm and the
Pot type 47: Spherical or ovoid body, in some cases angled, with convex base and divergent-
straight or slightly convex, with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two rounded or strap
vertical handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 2o cm and the
Pot Type 48: Spherical, ovoid, or in some cases angled, body with convex base and two strap or
rounded horizontal handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 6 and 17 cm
and the diameters of the mouth between 7 and 18 cm (Plate A-44).
Pot Type 49: Ellipsoidal horizontal body with neck divergent slightly concave, continuous rim
and rounded lip. It has two small vertical handles on the shoulders. It is 11 cm high and the
diameter of the mouth 13 cm (Plate A-44).
554
Pot Type 50: Ovoid body with convex base, divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are
between 9 and 19 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 7 and 13 cm (Plate A-44).
Pot Type 51: Ovoid body with convex base, divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles in the equator. The height of the vessel is 17 cm and
the diameter of the mouth 13 cm (Plate A-44).
Pot Type 52: Ovoid body, slightly angled, with convex base and short divergent-straight neck
with two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. It15 cm high with a diameter of the mouth 9
cm (Plate A-44).
Pot Type 53: Ovoid body with convex base, divergent-convex neck, continuous rim and rounded
lip with two horizontal strap handles at the equator. It is 11 cm high and a diameter of the mouth
11 cm (Plate A-44).
Pot Type 54: Spherical or ovoid body, with pedestal base and neck divergent-straight or slightly
concave, continuous border and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles at the equator. The
heights of the vessels are between 16 and 25 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 13 and
19 cm (Plate A-45).
Pot Type 55: Spherical or ovoid body with pedestal base, slightly composite neck, continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights are between 15
and 24 cm and diameters of the mouth between 13 and 17 cm.
Pot Type 56: Spherical or ovoid body with pedestal base, composite neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip with two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The height is between 11 and 23
cm and the diameters of the mouth between 15 and 16 cm. Figure A-49 and Plate A-45).
555
Pot Type 57: Ovoid elongate body with pedestal base and composite neck with continuous rim
and rounded lips with two vertical strap handles at the equator. The heights of the vessels are
Pot Type 58: Ovoid body with pedestal base, composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip.
Two vertical strap handles at the equator. The heights of the vessels are between 13 and 24 cm
and the diameters of the mouths between 9 and 15 cm (Plate A-45).
Pot Type 59: Spherical or ovoid body, on occasions angled, with pedestal base and two vertical
straps handles on the shoulders or the equator. Composite neck, with the upper part divergent,
continuous rim, and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 21 cm and the
Pot Type 60: Spherical body with convex base without handles, with height convergent-convex
neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. On occasions, there are two ceramic cone applications on
the neck or shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 15 and 17 cm and the diameters of
Pot Type 61: Spherical body with convex base and high neck convergent-convex, with the same
dimensions of the body. The heights of the vessels are between 16 and 23 cm and the diameters of
Pot Type 62: Spherical or ovoid bodies, in some cases angled, with convex or flat base without
handles. The neck is vertical-convex, with continuous rim and rounded lips. The heights of the
46).
556
Pot Type 63: Spherical body with convex base and two small vertical strap handles on the
shoulders. Convergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the
vessels are between 12 and 20 cm and the diameter of the mouth 9 cm (Plate A-46).
Pot Type 64: Ovoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders and
continuous rim with rounded lips. The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 20 cm and the
Pot Type 65: Angled body with flat base with two horizontal strap handles at the equator and
vertical slightly convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights are between 9 and
13 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 5 and 12 cm.
Pot Type 66: Ovoid or ellipsoid body, convex base and vertical convex body with two horizontal
strap handles on the shoulders or equator. The heights of the vessels are between 7 and 14 cm and
the diameter of the mouths between 3 and 11 cm (Plate A-47).
Pot Type 67: Ovoid body with convex base. Short vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. No handles. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 20 cm and the diameters
of the mouth between 9 and 13 cm (Plate A-47).
Pot Type 68: Ellipsoid body, on some occasions angled, with convex base and two rounded
vertical handles the shoulders. Short divergent slightly convex neck with continuous border and
rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 9 and 14 cm and the diameter of the mouth 6
cm (Plate A-47).
Pot Type 69: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base without handles. Divergent-straight neck
with continuous rim and rounded lips. The heights of the vessels are between 7 and 14 cm and the
557
Pot Type 70: Spherical body with convex base and short slightly convergent-convex base with
continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two ceramic applications on the shoulders. The height of
the vessel is 13 cm and diameter of the mouth 10 cm (Plate A-47).
Pot Type 71: Ovoid or slightly angled body with convex base and divergent slightly convex neck
with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The
heights of the vessels are between 9 and 15 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 7 and 17
cm (Plate A-48).
Pot Type 72: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base, divergent-convex neck and continuous
rim and rounded rim with two vertical strap or rounded handles on the shoulders. The heights of
the vessels are between 9 and 21 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 7 and 19 cm (Plate
A-48).
Pot Type 73: Ovoid body with convex base, with divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip with two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are
between 13 and 17 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 13 and 23 cm (Plate A-48).
Pot Type 74: Ovoid body with convex base and divergent slightly convex neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 20 cm and the diameter of the
mouth are between 7 and 15 cm (Plate A-48).
Pot Type 75: Globular or ovoid bodies, in occasions slightly angled with convex base. Slightly
divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip with two horizontal strap handles on
the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 8 and 23 cm and the diameters of the mouth
558
Pot Type 76: Ovoid or slightly angled body with convex base and vertical-convex neck with
continuous rim and rounded lips and two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The height of the
vessel is 12 cm and the diameter of the mouth 8 cm (Plate A-48).
Pot Type 77: Globular body with convex base, vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lips without handles. The height of the vessel is 7 cm and diameter of the mouth 4 cm
(Plate A-49).
Pot Type 78: Globular or ellipsoid body with convex base without handles. Vertical-convex neck
with continuous rim and rounded lips. The heights of the vessels are between 8 and 22 cm and the
Pot Type 79: Ovoid or elongate ovoid bodies with convex base without handles and the sculpted
representation of a cucurbit. It has a short vertical-convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip.
The height of the vessel is 18 cm and the diameter of the mouth 18 cm (Plate A-49).
Pot Type 80: Globular body with convex base and two vertical strap handles on the shoulder. It
has a vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It is between 7 and 10 cm high
and diameter of the mouth between 8 and 10 cm (Plate A-49).
Pot Type 81: Lenticular angled body with convex base and vertical-convex neck, continuous rim
and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 16 cm and the diameter of the mouth 10 cm (Plate A-
49).
Pot Type 82: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base and vertical neck with thickened rim in
the exterior type “half-arrow point” and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 11
and 19 cm and the diameters of the mouths between 5 and 11 cm (Plate A-49).
559
Pot Type 83: Ovoid or lenticular body with convex base and vertical-concave neck with
thickened rim in the exterior type “half-arrow point”. The heights of the vessels are between 8 and
15 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 6 and 10 cm (Plate A-50).
Pot Type 84: Ovoid body with convex base without handles and divergent-straight neck with
thickened rim in the exterior type “half-arrow point”. The height of the vessel is 12 cm and the
Pot Type 85: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the
shoulders. Vertical-concave neck with thickened rim in the exterior type “half-arrow point” and
rounded or thinned lip. The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 21 cm and the diameter of
Pot Type 86: Ovoid or lenticular angled body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles
in the equator. The neck is divergent slightly concave with thickened rim on the exterior type
“half-arrow point” and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is between 10 and 14 cm and the
Pot Type 87: Ovoid body, in some cases angled with convex base without handles. Composite
neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is between 14 and 22 cm and
the diameters of the mouth between 9 and 18 cm (Plate A-50).
Pot Type 88: Ovoid body with convex base and composite neck with continuous rim and rounded
lip. The height of the vessel is between 12 and 26 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 8
Pot Type 89: Angled body with convex base without handles. It has a composite neck with bi-
front face with incised and punctuated decoration. Height of the vessel 20 cm and the diameter of
the mouth 13 cm (Plate A-51).
560
Pot Type 90: Ovoid body double-composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. In some
cases it has two ceramic cones applied to the neck. The heights of the vessels are between 13 and
19 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 12 and 14 cm.
Pot Type 91: Ovoid body with the representation of a cucurbit with flat base without handles.
Composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 13 cm and the
Pot Type 92: Globular body with convex base without handles. Double composite neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessels is 21 cm and the diameter of the mouth
16 cm (Plate A-51).
Pot Type 93: Elongate ovoid body with convex base. It has a composite neck, with continuous
rim and rounded lip. Usually, there are two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders, although
one specimen from Huaca Concha has 4. When decorated, it consists only of white brushstrokes
on the body and the interior and exterior of the neck. The heights of the vessels are between 10
and 24 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 7 and 12 cm (Plate A-51).
Pot Type 94: Globular or ovoid body with convex base and composite neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip with two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are
Pot Type 95: Ellipsoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders.
The neck is divergent slightly composite with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the
52).
561
Pot Type 96: Ovoid body slightly angled with convex base without handles. The neck is
divergent, slightly composite, with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are
between 20 and 24 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 16 and 17 cm (Plate A-52).
Pot Type 97: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base and composite neck, continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. In one case, the handles were
sculpted toads. The heights of the vessels are between 10 and 24 cm and the diameters of the
Pot Type 98: Sculpted body representing a sitting personage. Composite neck with the head of
the personage. The height of the vessel is 19 cm and diameter of the mouth 11 cm (Plate A-52).
Pot Type 99: Spherical or ovoid body in some cases slightly angled with convex base. The neck
is slightly composite with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between
11 and 19 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 10 and 16 cm (Plate A-53)..
Pot Type 100: Globular body with convex base. High composite neck with continuous rim and
rounded lips without handles. The height of the vessels is 17 cm and the diameter of the mouth 11
cm (Plate A-53)..
Pot Type 101: Ovoid elongate body with convex base and divergent slightly composite neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The heights
of the vessels are between 19 and 23 cm and the diameter of the mouth 13 cm (Plate A-53)..
Pot Type 102: Ovoid body with convex base with two vertical strap handles on the shoulders.
Composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessel are between 17
and 20 cm and diameter of the mouth between 10 and 13 cm (Plate A-53).
Pot Type 103: Spherical body with convex base and composite neck and two horizontal strap
handles on the shoulder. It is 19 cm high and the diameter of the mouth 12 cm.
562
Pot Type 104: Horizontal ellipsoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on
the shoulders. Composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessels are
Pot Type 105: Spherical body with convex base and slightly composite neck with two horizontal
strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 9 and 21 cm and the
Pot Type 106: Lenticular angled body with convex base without handles. Composite neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip with a ceramic cone attached in the neck. The height of the vessel
is 10 cm and the diameter of the mouth 8 cm (Plate A-54).
Pot Type 107: ovoid body with convex base without handles. Composite neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 11 cm and the diameter of the mouth 8 cm (Plate
A-54).
Pot Type 108: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the
shoulders. In one case, there are four handles. Composite neck with continuous rim and rounded
lip. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 18 cm and the diameter of the mouths between
10 and 13 cm (Plate A-54).
Pot Type 109: Ovoid body with flat base without handles but with two ceramic cone applications
on the shoulders. It has a composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the
Pot Type 110: Ovoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders
and double composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessels is 16
cm and the diameter of the body 11 cm (Plate A-55).
563
Pot Type 111: Ovoid body with flat base and composite neck with continuous rim and rounded
lip. It is attached to a second body by a tube and horizontal strap handle. The second body in one
case has the representations of a sculpted human representation. The heights of the vessels are
between 11 and 15 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 5 and 11 cm (Plate A-55).
Pot Type 112: Spherical body with flat base, neck-face without handles. It has geometric
decoration in white and red on the body. The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 15 cm and
the diameter of the body 4 cm (Figure A-46 and Plate A-55).
Jar Type 1: Spherical body, in some cases slightly angled, without handles and convex base. The
neck is vertical-concave with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are
Jar Type 2: Ellipsoid body with convex base without strap handles with convergent slightly
convex or vertical slightly concave, continuous rim and rounded lip. It is between 9 and 13 cm
height and the diameter of the mouth 3 cm (Plate A-55).
Jar Type 3: Canteen-shaped body with convex base without handles. It has a divergent-concave
neck, continuous rim and rounded lips. It is 9 cm height and the diameter of the mouth 5 cm (Plate
A-55).
Jar Type 4: Ovoid body with convex base, in some cases slightly angled with two vertical
handles at the equator and convex base. The neck is slightly concave with continuous rim and
rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 16 and 19 cm and the diameter of the mouth
Jar Type 5: Ovoid body with conical base without handles and short divergent-concave neck
with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 13 cm and diameter of the mouth
5 cm (Plate A-56).
564
Jar Type 6: Ovoid body with flat base and divergent-concave neck with thickened rim in the
exterior and rounded lip. It has four vertical strap handles two from shoulders to necks and two at
the equator. The height of the vessel is of the vessel 30 cm and diameter of the mouth 12 cm
(Plate A-56).
Jar Type 7: Ellipsoid body slightly angled with convex base and two horizontal strap handles the
shoulder. Vertical-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is
13 cm and diameter of the mouth 7 cm (Plate A-56).
Jar Type 8: ovoid body with convex base and two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The
neck is divergent-concave, continuous rim and rounded lip and round lip. It has two vertical strap
handles on the shoulders. The height of the vessel is 16 cm and diameter of the mouth 5 cm (Plate
A-57).
Jar Type 9: ovoid body with convex or flat base and divergent slightly concave neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip. There are two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The height
of the vessel is between 8 and 22 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 9 and 11 cm (Plate
A-57).
Jar Type 10: Lenticular angled body with flat or convex base and divergent slightly concave
neck with continuous rim and round lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The
heights of the vessels are between 8 and 15 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 4 and 8
cm (Plate A-57).
Jar Type 11: Ovoid body with convex base and vertical-concave neck with thickened rim on the
exterior and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles at the equator. The heights of the vessels
are between 21 and 23 cm and diameter of the mouth between 5 and 8 cm (Plate A-57).
565
Jar Type 12: Ovoid body with convex base and short divergent slightly concave neck, with
continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is between 13 and 14 cm and the
diameter of the mouths between 5 and 8 cm (Plate A-57).
Jar Type 13: Ovoid body with convex base and divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and
Jar Type 14: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base and divergent slightly concave neck,
continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of
the vessels are between 10 and 20 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 5 and 8 cm (Plate
A-58).
Jar Type 15: Ovoid body with convex base without handles. The neck is divergent slightly
convex with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 10 and 17 cm
and the diameters of the mouths between 5 and 9 cm (Plate A-58).
Jar Type 16: Spherical body with convex base and short vertical-straight neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. It is 29 cm high and the
Jar Type 17: Spherical body with convex base without handles. The neck is convergent-concave,
the rim continuous and the lip rounded. The heights of the vessels are between 8 and 11 cm and
the diameters of the mouths between 3 and 5 cm (Plate A-58).
Jar Type 18: Ovoid body with convex base and the neck convergent-convex, continuous rim and
566
Jar Type 19: Ovoid body with convex base and vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulder. The height of the vessel is
between 18 and 19 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 4 and 7 cm ( Figure A-54 and
Plate A-58).
Jar Type 20: Ovoid or spherical body, sometimes slightly angled, with convex base. Vertical-
convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 25
cm, diameter of the mouths between 4 and 11 cm (Figure A-47 and Plate A-59).
Jar Type 21: Ovoid body with convex or flat base, with two vertical strap handles at the equator.
The neck is divergent-convex, with continuous rim and rounded lip. It is between 8 and 25 cm
high and the diameter of the mouths between 8 and 9 cm (Plate A-59).
Jar Type 22: Ovoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles in the shoulder. The
neck is divergent-convex with two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The neck is
divergent-convex with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 9
and 20 cm and the diameters of the mouths between 4 and 9 cm (Plate A-59).
Jar Type 23: Ovoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders.
Divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are
Jar Type 24: Ellipsoid or ovoid body slightly angled. Vertical-convex neck with two vertical
strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 12 and 17 cm and the
diameters of the mouth are between 4 and 10 cm (Plate A-59).
Jar Type 25: Ovoid body with convex base with two vertical strap handles on the shoulders
with vertical-convex neck. Heights of the vessels are between 11 and 25 cm and the diameters of
the mouths between 4 and 8 cm (Plate A-59).
567
Jar Type 26: Ovoid angled body with convex base and two vertical strap handles on the
shoulders. Vertical-convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are
Jar Type 27: Horizontal ellipsoid body with convex base and composite neck. It has four vertical
strap handles, two at the equator and two from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is 18
cm and diameter of the mouth 6 cm (Plate A-60).
Jar Type 28: Spherical or ovoid body with convex base with two vertical strap handles from
shoulders to neck. In one case a body has the representation of a cucurbit. Composite neck with
continuous rim with rounded lip. The height of the vessel is between 9 and 21 cm and the
Jar Type 29: Spherical or ovoid body, in one case with the representation of a cucurbit. The neck
is vertical or convergent-convex with two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The
heights of the vessels are between 10 and 24 cm and the diameters of the mouth between 3 and 6
cm (Plate A-60).
Jar Type 30: Spherical or ovoid body, in some cases angled, with convex base and divergent-
convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to
neck. The heights of the vessels are between 10 and 30 cm and diameter of the mouth between 3
Jar Type 31: Spherical or vertical ellipsoid body with convex base and two vertical strap handles
from shoulders to neck. In one case there is a braided handle. The neck is composite with
continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are between 11 and 24 cm and the
diameters of the mouths between 7 and 11 cm (Plate A-60).
568
Jar Type 32: Horizontal ellipsoid body, convex base and divergent-concave neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The
heights of the vessels are between 10 and 19 cm and the diameter of the mouth 4 cm (Plate A-61).
Jar Type 33: Spherical body, in some cases slightly angled, with convex or flat base, and
vertical-convex neck with two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The heights of the
61).
Jar Type 34: Spherical or ovoid body, in some cases with the representation of a cucurbit. It has
a convex base and divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lips. The height of
the vessel is between 9 and 29 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 6 and 13 cm (Plate A-
61).
Jar Type 35: Elongate ovoid body with convex base and divergent-concave neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the
vessels is 22 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 8 and 12 cm (Plate A-61).
Jar Type 36: Ellipsoid body with convex base, in one case with the representation of a
cucurbit. It has divergent-convex neck with thickened rim towards the exterior and rounded lip. It
has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The heights of the vessels are between 13
and 16 cm and the diameter of the mouth is 9 cm (Plate A-61).
Jar Type 37: Spherical or ellipsoid body, in some cases with the representation of a cucurbit,
with convex base. The neck is vertical or divergent with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has
two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The heights of the vessels are between 6 and 19
cm and the diameters of the mouths between 4 and 7 cm (Figure A-50 and Plate A-61)
569
Jar Type 38: Ovoid body with convex base and vertical strap handles from shoulders to
composite neck. The heights of the vessels are between 13 and 18 cm and the diameters of the
Jar Type 39: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and neck slightly composite with two
vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 17 and 19 cm and
Jar Type 40: Ovoid body with convex base and composite neck, continuous rim and rounded
lips. There are two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are
between 13 and 18 cm and diameter of the mouth between 5 and 7 cm (Plate A-62).
Jar Type 41: Lenticular or ovoid body with convex base and composite neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip. It has two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels
are between 11 and 17 cm and the diameters of the mouths between 4 and 7 cm (Plate A-62).
Jar Type 42: Ovoid angled body with flat base and composite neck with continuous rim and
rounded lips, without handles. The height of the vessel is 9 cm and diameters of the mouth 4 cm
(Plate A-62).
Jar Type 43: Spherical body with convex base and high double composite neck, continuous rim
and rounded lips. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The height of the vessel is 20
Jar Type 44: Ovoid body with a human sculpted face on the neck and two vertical strap handles
on the shoulder. It has a painted decoration on the body with the representation of a bird in red.
The height of the vessel is 23 cm and the diameter of the mouth 5 cm.
570
Jar Type 45: Ovoid body with a human sculpted face on the neck that is divergent with
continuous rim and rounded lip. There are two vertical strap handles on the shoulder. The height
Jar Type 46: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and two vertical strap handles from
shoulders to neck. The neck is vertical or divergent-concave. The heights of the vessels are
between 19 and 22 cm and the diameter of the mouth between 5 and 6 cm.
Jar Type 47: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the
shoulders, composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of the vessels are
between 13 and 22 cm and the diameters of the mouth 7 cm (Plate A-63).
Jar Type 48: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and divergent-concave neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip with two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The height
of the vessel is 18 cm and diameter of the mouth 7 cm (Plate A-63).
Jar Type 49: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and vertical-convex neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical straps from shoulders to neck. The heights of the vessels
are between 19 and 26 cm and the diameter of the mouth 4 cm (Plate A-63).
Jar Type 50: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and two vertical strap handles from
shoulders to neck. It has a divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The
height of the vessels is between 15 and 33 cm and the diameter of the mouth 11 cm (Plate A-64).
Jar Type 51: Canteen-shaped body with convex base and vertical-convex neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. There are two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The height of the
vessel is between 19 and 26 cm and the diameter of the mouth 7 cm.
Jar Type 52: Ovoid body with convex base, continuous rim and rounded lip without neck and
handles. The height of the vessel is 15 cm and the diameter of the mouth 9 cm (Plate A-64).
571
Jar Type 53: Double-body whistle vessel. One body is spherical with flat base and divergent
convex neck. It is attached to a second body bird-shaped with an orifice for whistling. The heights
of the vessels are 14 and 18 cm and diameter of the mouths 5 and 6 cm (Plate A-64).
Jar Type 54: Double-body vessel. One body is globular with convex base with vertical-convex
neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It is attached to the other body that has the representation of
a personage with an enormous nose and his hands holding his face. There is a strap handle from
the neck to the head of the personage. It is 12 cm high and 15 cm long (Plate A-64).
Jar Type 55: Ellipsoid body slightly angled with annular base and high neck vertical-straight. It
has two vertical braid handles from shoulders to neck. The height of the vessel is 17 cm and
Jar Type 56: Spherical or ellipsoid body with convex base and vertical-concave neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The
heights of the vessels are between 16 and 19 cm and the diameters of the mouths between 4 and 6
cm (Plate A-65).
Jar Type 57: Ovoid body with flat base and two rounded vertical handles on the shoulders.
Vertical-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded rim. It has the representation of a human
face on the neck. The height of the vessel is 26 cm and diameter of the mouth 6 cm (Plate A-65).
Jar Type 58: Ellipsoid or ovoid body with flat base and high vertical-concave neck with
continuous rim and rounded lip. The neck has the representation of a human face. One case has
two vertical rounded handles, and another case has the arms of a personage on the sides as
handles. The height of the vessel is 14 cm and the diameter of the mouth 4 cm (Plate A-65).
572
Jar Type 59: Ellipsoid body with conical base and divergent-convex neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles at the equator. The height of the vessel is 58 cm
and the mouth 22 cm (Plate A-66).
Jug Type 1: Spherical or ovoid body with flat base and a human face on the neck. Usually, it has
painted decoration with geometric designs or flying birds on the body. It has one vertical strap
handle from shoulder to neck. The heights of the vessels are between 6 and 20 cm and diameter of
the mouth between 4 and 8 cm (Figure A-55 (Plate A-67).
Jug Type 2: Spherical or ovoid body with short vertical-straight or divergent slightly concave
neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has a vertical strap handle from shoulder to rim. In
one case, the vessel has a geometric painted decoration in red and white. It is 16 cm high and a
mouth diameter of 5 cm (Plate A-67).
Jug Type 3: Spherical or ovoid slightly angled body with composite neck, continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has a vertical trap handle from shoulder to neck. In one case it has painted
geometric decoration in white and red. The height of the vessel is 13 cm and diameter of the
Jug Type 4: Ovoid body with convex base and vertical-concave neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has a conical appendix attached to the neck. There is one vertical strap handle from
shoulder to neck. It is 21 cm high and a mouth diameter of 8 cm (Plate A-67).
Jug Type 5: Lenticular, in some cases angled, body with convex base and one vertical strap
handle from shoulder to neck. Vertical-straight neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The
heights of the vessels are between 9 and 14 cm and the diameter of the mouths between 4 and 5
cm (Plate A-67).
573
Jug Type 6: Sculpted body representing a fish with divergent-convex neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip. It has a vertical strap handle between the body of the fish and the neck. The
height of the vessel is 9 cm and the diameter of the body 7 cm (Plate A-67).
Jug Type 7: Sculpted body representing a bird with slightly concave and one vertical strap handle
from the shoulders to the neck. Height of the vessel is 15 cm and the mouth 3 cm (Figure A-42
and Plate A-68).
Jug Type 8: Ovoid body with convex base and the representation of a human face on the neck
with a vertical strap handle from the shoulder to the neck. The height of the vessel is 15 cm and
Jug Type 9: Sculpted ovoid body with the representation of a sitting personage with its face on
the neck. Vertical or divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The heights of
the vessels are between 13 and 20 cm and diameter of the mouth between 3 and 10 cm (Figures
A-56 and A-57, and Plate A-68).
Jug Type 10: Spherical body with convex base and vertical-concave neck with thickened rim on
the exterior and rounded lip. It has a vertical strap handle from the shoulder to the neck. The
height of the vessel is 13 cm and the diameter of the mouth 5 cm. It has a painted decoration on
the body with the representation of the heads of fishes (Figure A-58 and Plate A-68).
Jug Type 11: Ellipsoid body representing a bird with a vertical strap handle from shoulder to
divergent-convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It is 20 cm high and diameter of the
Jug Type 12: Ellipsoid body with convex base and vertical rounded handle from shoulder to
neck. Convergent-straight neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has a sculpted bird
574
attached at the joint between the neck and the body. Height 16 cm and diameter of the mouth 5
cm (Plate A-68).
Jug Type 13: Globular body with convex base with a small conical appendix on the body and
vertical strap handle from the shoulder to the neck. Convergent-convex neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip. It is 12 cm high and a mouth diameter of 5 cm (Plate A-69).
Jug Type 14: Spherical body with convex base and one strap handle from shoulder to neck.
Divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. There is a painted serrated design on
the body in white. Another vessel has a flat base without decoration.
Jug Type 15: Spherical or ellipsoid body with convex base and composite neck with continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has a vertical strap handle from shoulder to neck. The height of the vessel
Jug Type 16: Spherical body with convex base and divergent-concave neck with continuous rim
and rounded lip. There is a vertical strap handle from shoulder to neck. One specimen has the
body in the shape of a cucurbit with a sculpted application representing a feline at the joint
between the body and the neck (Plate A-69).
Jug Type 17: Spherical body with convex base and a vertical strap handle from shoulder to a
vertical-convex neck. The height of the vessel is 10 cm and the diameter of the mouth 3 cm (Plate
A-69).
Jug Type 18: Ellipsoid body with convex base and one vertical handle from shoulder to neck
with a sculpted bird applied to the neck. The height of the vessel is 14 cm and the diameter of the
Jug Type 19: Ellipsoid body with convex base and a vertical strap handle from the shoulder to
the neck. Divergent-concave neck with thickened rim and flat lip. There is a sculpted feline
575
applied to the neck. Divergent-concave neck with thickened rim and flat lip. The height of the
vessel is 22 cm and the diameter of the mouth 9 cm (Plate A-70).
Jug Type 20: Spherical or canteen-shape body with convex base and a sculpted human face on
the neck, in one case with the representation of a personage kissing a bird held in his hands (Plate
A-70).
Bottle Type 1: Double-body bottle. One of the bodies is ovoid with convex base and vertical-
straight neck, continuous rim and rounded rim. It is attached to the other body by a horizontal
strap handle and a tube. The height of the vessel is 15 cm and the diameter of the mouth 2 cm
(Plate A-70).
Bottle Type 2: Stirrup-spout bottle with spherical body and convex base. It has a sculpted human
face on the neck. Continuous rim and rounded lip. The height of the vessel is 19 cm and the
diameter of the mouth 4 cm (Figure A-45 and Plate A-70).
Rattles: Bell-shaped, hollow and with small stones in the inside. When shaken, it sounds. It is 9
cm height and 12 cm diameter (Plate A-70).
Spindle whorl: It is a sherd modified in the shape of a wheel with a perforation in the middle.
Figurine Type 1: Solid or hollow human representations (Figure A-51).
Figurine Type 2: Solid camelid representations.
Modified sherds: Sherds that have been carved for unknown functions.
Lid sherds: Sherds of lids of vessels like pots or jars.
Unidentified specimen: Seems to be part of a bigger specimen. Hollow frustum body with
convex base. The height of the specimen is15 cm.
Rim sherd Type 1: Thickened rim of a neck-less vessel with rounded lip. The diameter of the
mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-71).
576
Rim sherd Type 2: Vertical-concave neck with thickened rim and thinned lip. Diameter of the
Rim sherd Type 3: Short neck vertical slightly concaved, continuous rim and rounded lip.
Diameter of the mouth is 16 cm (Plate A-71).
Rim sherd Type 4: Short vertical slightly convex neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The
diameters of the mouths are between 12 and 14 cm (Plate A-71).
Rim sherd Type 5: Divergent-straight neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. Diameter of the
Rim sherd Type 6: Divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter
of the mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-71).
Rim sherd Type 7: Short divergent-concave neck with slightly thickened rim on the exterior and
Rim sherd Type 8: Vertical-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of
the mouth is 14 cm.
Rim sherd Type 9: Vertical-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of
Rim sherd Type 10: Divergent-convex neck with thinned rim in the outside and rounded lip. The
diameter of the mouth is 20 cm.
Rim sherd Type 11: Divergent-straight neck with thinned rim in the interior and rounded lip. The
diameter of the mouth is 16 cm (Plate A-72).
Rim sherd Type 12: Long neck divergent slightly concave continuous rim and rounded lip. The
577
Rim sherd Type 13: Divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has a neck
brace in the joint between the body and the neck (Plate A-72).
Rim sherd Type 14: Divergent-concave neck with thickened rim in the exterior and rounded lip.
The diameter of the mouth is 13 cm (Plate A-72).
Rim sherd Type 15: Convergent-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter
Rim sherd Type 16: Divergent slightly composite neck with thinned rim in the interior and
Rim sherd Type 17: Divergent-convex neck with thickened rim and flat lip. It has impressed
circles in the lip as decoration. The diameter of the mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-72).
Rim sherd Type 18: Divergent-convex with thinned rim in the interior and rounded lip. The
Rim sherd Type 19: It is a divergent slightly concave short neck with thickened rim in the
exterior and rounded lip. The diameter of the mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-73).
Rim sherd Type 20: It is a short divergent-straight neck with continuous rim and rounded lip.
Rim sherd Type 21: Divergent-concave neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter
Rim sherd Type 22: Divergent slightly concave neck with the rim slightly thinned in the interior
and rounded lip. The diameter of the mouth is 18 cm (Plate A-73).
Rim sherd Type 23: Composite neck with rim folded to the exterior and rounded lip. The
578
Rim sherd Type 24: Composite neck with thickened rim in the exterior and rounded lip. The
Rim sherd Type 25: Short divergent-concave neck with “half-arrow-point” rim and thinned rim
in the interior (Plate A-73).
Rim sherd Type 26: Short divergent-concave neck with “half-arrow-point” rim and lip thinned in
the interior. The diameter of the mouth is 13 cm (Plate A-73).
Rim sherd Type 27: Divergent-straight neck with rim folded on the exterior and rounded lip.
Diameter of the mouth is 10 cm (Plate A-73).
Rim sherd Type 28: Divergent-concave neck with thickened “half-arrow-point” and rounded lip.
Rim sherd Type 29: Divergent slightly concave neck with the rim folded to the exterior and
Rim sherd Type 30: Short vertical-concave neck with the rim thickened to the exterior and
rounded lip. Diameter of the mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-74).
Rim sherd Type 31: Slightly double-composed divergent neck, with the rim thinned in the
interior and round lip. Diameter of the mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-74).
Rim sherd Type 32: Slightly composite neck with the rim folded towards the exterior. The
Rim sherd Type 33: Vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of
Rim sherd Type 34: Slightly composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of
the mouth 12 cm (Plate A-74).
579
Rim sherd Type 35: Composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of the
Rim sherd Type 37: Composite neck with the rim folded towards the exterior and rounded lip.
Rim sherd Type 39: Composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical
rounded handles from shoulder to rim. The diameter of the mouth is 12 cm (Plate A-75).
Rim sherd Type 40: Short divergent-straight neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two
rounded vertical handles from shoulder to neck. The diameter of the mouth is 18 cm (Plate A-75).
Rim sherd Type 41: Short composite neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two
rounded vertical handles. The diameter of the mouth is 12 cm (Plate A-75).
Rim sherd Type 42: Divergent-straight neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two
vertical rounded handles from shoulder to neck. The diameter of the mouth is 17 cm (Plate A-75).
Rim sherd Type 43: Divergent-concave neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical
rounded handles from shoulder to neck. The diameter of the mouth is 11 cm (Plate A-75).
Rim sherd Type 44: Divergent-straight or slightly composite neck, continuous rim and rounded
lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to rim. The diameters of the mouths are
Rim sherd Type 45: Neck-less vessel, with “half-arrow point” rim and rounded lip. The diameter
580
Rim sherd Type 46: Short neck with “half arrow point” rim and rounded lip. The diameter of the
Rim sherd Type 47: Neck-less vessel with the rim thickened toward the exterior, round lip and
Rim sherd Type 48: Divergent slightly convex neck thinned rim in the exterior and rounded lip.
Rim sherd Type 49: Divergent-concave neck with thickened rim in the exterior and rounded lip.
Rim sherd Type 50: Divergent-convex neck with the rim thickened and a diameter of the mouth
of 30 cm (Plate A-77).
Rim sherd Type 51: Vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of
Rim sherd Type 52: Divergent slightly composite neck, continuous rim and rounded lip. The
Rim sherd Type 53: Short vertical or slightly divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. The diameters of the mouth are between 22 and 32 cm (Plate A-78).
Rim sherd Type 54: Divergent-straight neck, continuous rim and rounded lip with two sculpted
toads attached to the rim. Diameter of the mouth is 24 cm (Plate A-78).
Rim sherd Type 55: Bowl with continuous rim and rounded lip. Diameter of the mouth is 14 cm
(Plate A-78).
Rim sherd Type 56: Bowl with continuous rim and rounded lip. The diameter of the mouth is 36
cm (Plate A-78).
581
Rim sherd Type 57: High divergent-straight neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. It has
two rounded vertical handles from shoulders to neck. The diameter of the mouth is 3.5 cm (Plate
A-78).
Rim sherd Type 58: High composite neck with continuous rim. The diameter of the mouth is 3
cm (Plate A-78).
Rim sherd Type 59: Slightly composite convergent neck with thinned rim in the interior and
Rim sherd Type 60: Vertical slightly composite neck with thinner rim in the interior and rounded
lip. Diameter of the mouth is 14 cm (Plate A-78).
Handle Type 1: Vertical rounded handle on the shoulders.
Handle Type 2: Vertical rounded handle from shoulder to neck.
Handle Type 3: Horizontal rounded handle on the shoulders or the equator of the vessel.
Handle Type 4: Vertical strap handle in the shoulder or the equator of the vessel.
Handle Type 5: Vertical strap handle from shoulders to neck.
Handle Type 6: Horizontal strap handle in the shoulder or the equator.
Handle Type 7: Vertical braided handle on the shoulders or the equator.
A.8.3 Decorative Types:
Type 1: White brush strokes.
Type 2: Red and white color fields.
Type 3: White and brown color fields.
Type 4: White lines over black background.
Type 5: Serpent in relief.
Type 6: Applied buttons.
582
Type 7: Applied sculpted maize.
Type 8: Application with incisions.
Type 9: Impressed rings on the lip.
Type 10: Impressed rings on the body.
Type 11: Impressed human faces.
Type 12: Impressed lines.
Type 13: Red color field.
Type 14: White brush strokes over black background.
Type 15: Many burnished crossed lines.
Type 16: Incised lines.
Type 17: White stripes with red and black rims.
Type 18: Red stripe with black rim.
Type 19: Applied button with dots.
Type 20: Sitting personage.
Type 21: Applied zoomorphic sculptured.
Type 22: Impressed tentacle
Type 23: Anthropomorphic impressed face.
Type 24: White painted bird with black rim.
Type 25: Sculpted representation of a cucurbit on the body.
Type 26: Sculpted representation of a feline applied to the body.
Type 27: Sculpted representation of a dog applied to the body.
Type 28: “Goose skin” impressed on the body.
Base sherd Type 1: Flat base.
583
Base sherd Type 2: Convex base.
Base sherd Type 3: Concave base.
Base sherd Type 4: Pedestal base.
Base sherd Type 5: Sculpted base of a vessel representing a cucurbit.
Base sherd Type 6: Annular base.
Figure A-45. Early Ychsma Bottle Type 2 (MNAAHP)
584
Figure A-46. Early Ychsma Pot Type 112 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
Figure A-47. Figure Middle Ychsma Jar Type 20 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)
585
Figure A-48. Figure Middle/Late Ychsma pot Type 20 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)
Figure A-49. Middle Ychsma pot Type 56 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)
586
Figure A-50. Middle/Late Ychsma Jar Type 37 from Makatampu. (MNAAHP)
Figure A-51. Figurine Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
587
Figure A-52. Figurine Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
Figure A-53. Late Ychsma bottle Jug Type 19 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
588
Figure A-54. Late Ychsma Jar Type 19 with decoration Type 5 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
Figure A-55. Late Ychsma Jug Type 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP)
589
Figure A-56. Late Ychsma Jug Type 9 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
590
Figure A-59. Ychsma sherd with the representation of an octopus tentacle from Huaca Concha
(MAAUNMSM).
591
A.9. Chancay Pottery Style:
A.9.1 Ware types:
Chancay Ware 1: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 10YR 8/2 (very pale brown).
The inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-rounded or sub-angular particles of rock
between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm long, accounting for between 10% of the visible surface areas of the
paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed. When decorated, it has
brushstrokes in black or dark brown. This ware was used to make pots, jars (Figure A-60).
Chancay Ware 2: Oxidized with small-sized temper. The color is 5YR 6/4 (light reddish). The
inclusions are white, dark grey and light grey, sub-rounded or sub-angular particles of rock
between 1/4 mm and 1/2 mm long, accounting between 10% of the visible surface areas of the
paste. It is 2.5 on the Mohs hardness scale and was smoothed or burnished. When decorated, it has
painted designs in black and dark brown. This ware was used to make pots, and jars (Figure A-
61).
Figure A-60. Chancay Jar Type 2 ware 1 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
592
Figure A-61. Jar Type 2 ware 2 from Makatampu (MNAAHP).
A.9.2.Morphological types:
Jar Type 1: Ovoid body with flat base and divergent-concave neck with the rim thickened in the
exterior and rounded lip. It is12 cm high and the diameter of the mouth is 6 cm (Plate A-79).
Jar Type 2: Ellipsoid or elongate ovoid body with convex base and divergent-concave neck,
continuous rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulder to neck. The
heights of the vessels are between 12 and 29 cm and the diameters of the mouths are between 8
Jar Type 3: Spherical body with convex base, divergent-convex neck with continuous rim and
rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulder to neck. The height of the vessel is 20
Jar Type 4: Spherical body with convex base, divergent-convex neck, continuous rim a rounded
lip. It has two vertical strap handles on the shoulders. The heights of the vessels are between 14
and 15 cm and diameters of the mouths between 5 and 7 cm (Plate A-79).
593
Jar Type 5: Ovoid or ellipsoid body with convex body and neck slightly composite, continuous
rim and rounded lip. It has two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck. The heights of the
vessels are between 13 and 22 cm and the diameter of the mouth 8 cm. One of the vessels has
sculpted toads attached to the body and another vessel sculpted heads of dogs applied to the body
(Plate A-79).
Jar Type 6: Ellipsoid body with convex base and two horizontal strap handles on the shoulders.
Vertical-convex neck with continuous rim and rounded lip. There is only one specimen 20 cm
high and the diameter of the mouth unknown because it is incomplete (Plate A-79).
Indefinite jars: Two vessels with incomplete necks. One of them has canteen-shape body (Plate
A-79).
Jug Type 1: Ovoid body with wide mouth and one vertical handle from shoulders to lip.
Continuous rim and rounded lip (Plate A-79).
A.9.3 Decorative Types:
Type 1: Black line son White background.
Type 2: Diagonal black lines over white background.
Type 3: Black strips over white background.
Type 4: Many diagonal black crossed lines
Type 5: Black concentric crescents in the rims over white background.
Type 6: Black strips with serrated rims.
Type 7: Black “tracks” over white background.
Type 8: Sculpted toad applications.
Type 9: Impressed circles designs with four appendixes over “goose skin” background.
Type 10: Vertical sinuous black lines.
594
Type 11: Sculpted dog head applications (Figure A-62).
Figure A-62. Chancay Jar Type 5 from Makatampu with decoration type 11 (MNAAHP).
595
22 cm 26 cm
HSR-431 HSR-453
Type 1 Type 2
26 cm 14 cm
HSR-456 HSR-60
Type 3 Type 4
26 cm 20 cm
HSR-174 HSR-202
Type 5 Type 6
0 10 cm
Plate A-1. Ancon pottery style typology. Rim sherds.

596


Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Type 7
0 5 cm
Plate A-2. Ancon pottery style typology. Decorated sherds.

597
Topara style
Bottle Type 1 Bottle Type 2 Bottle Type 3
Lima style

C-58086
MT-5420
SM-4378-50
Pot Type 1 Pot Type 2
Bowl Type 1
0 10 cm
Plate A-3. Topara and Lima pottery styles. Vessel types.
598
SM-4282-12
Jar Type 1
Trumpet
HSR-N/N
0 10 cm
Plate A-4. Lima pottery style typology. Vessel types.
599
 
SM-4227-01 SM-4378-04
Type 1 Type 2


SM-3945-06
SM-4378-03 Type 4
Type 3

SM-4378-30
Type 5

SM-3925-11
Type 6
0 10 cm
Plate A-5. Lima pottery style typology. Rim sherds.
600
  
SM-4250-02 SM-4378-35
SM-3926-01
Type 8 Type 9
Type 7
 
S9-40 SM-4378-45
Type 10 Type 11
 
SM-4282-05
H13-02
Type 12
Type 13
0 10 cm
Plate A-6. Lima pottery style typology. Rim sherd types.
601
  
S9-37
HSR-227
HSR-98
Type 15 Type 16
Type 14
 

Broken strap
SM-4250-03
SM-3933-02
SM-3925-14
Type 17 Type 18
Type 19

SM-5197-12
Type 20
0 10 cm
Plate A-7. Lima pottery style typology. Rim sherds.
602
SM-3185-01
Type 1 SM-4282-10
Type 2
SM-4373-21 S9-89
S9-24
Type 3 Type 4
Type 5
S9-46
SM-3925-01
Type 6 Type 7
0 5 cm
Plate A-8. Lima pottery style typology. Decorated sherds.
603

S9-81
Type 8
Type 9a
SM-4282-12
Type 9b
Type 9c
S9-44
SM-3933-04
Type 10 Type 11
0 5 cm

604
S9-87
Type 12 SM-3945-01
Type 13 SM-3185-02
Type 14
?
HC-07
SM-3945-09
Type 15 SM 3926-08
Type 16 Type 17
SM-4227-02
HC-07
Type 18 Type 19 SM-4227-09
Type 20
0 10 cm
605
SM-5197-03
Type 21 SM-4279-03
SM-4250-09
Type 23
Type 22
SM-5197-03
SM-3933-05
Type 24 SM-5197-03
Type 26
Type 25
SM-4376
0 10 cm
606

SM-4373-17 SM-4227-01
Type 30 SM-4227-01 Type 32
Type 31
H21-32 H47-12
Type 34
H.S.R. - 178
Type 37
Type 38
SM-5197-18
Type 39
0 10 cm
607
H21-07
H21-06 Type 41
Type 40
S9-01
H21-15 Type 43
Type 42


SM-4378-45
SM-3925-14
Type 44 Type 45

SM-4047-04
SM-5108-13
Bottom Spoon
SM-3969
0 10 cm
Panpipes
Plate A-13. Lima pottery style typology. Decorated sherds, bottom,

spoon and panpipes.
608

Broken Vertedera
SM 1027-01
Closed bowl Type 1
0 10 cm
H.S.R. 022
H.S.R. - 100 SM 0031- 15
Type 1
Type 2 Type 3
0 5 cm
SM4053-01
SM4227-10
Type 3 SM4227-07
Type 6
Type 5
0 5 cm
Plate A-14. Nieveria pottery style typology. Decorated sherds.
609
HC-21
SM776-7
SM911-6
Type 9
Type 7
Type 8
HC-22
Type 10
HC-26
Type 11
HC-50
SM-31-2
Type 12
Type 13
0 10 cm
610
SM-31-14
Type 14 SM-82-2
SM-82-1
Type 16
Type 15
SM-4227-13
SM-911-10 Type 18
Type 17
S9-79
S9-05
Type 19 Type 20
0 10 cm
611
SM-0776-21
SM-0775-17
Open Bowl 1 Open Bowl 2
SM-0979-1
SM-0779 - 03
Open Bowl 3 Beaker 1
0 10 cm
Plate A-17. Wari pottery style typology. Vessels.
612
SM-980-08
SM-779-04
Closed bowl Type 1
Pot Type 1
SM-3471
Jar Type 1
0 10 cm
Plate A-18. Wari pottery style typology. Vessels.
613
21 cm 16 cm
16 cm
SM-1006-4
SM-980-7 SM-0031-20
Type 2
Type 1 Type 3
16 cm 34 cm
SM-778-06 SM-911-12
Type 4 Type 5
 17 cm
SM-778-05 SM-0061
Type 6 Type 7
0 10 cm
Plate A-19. Wari pottery style typology. Rim sherds.
614
6 cm
6 cm
10 cm
SM-776-5
SM-1005-1 SM-1005-2
Type 10
Type 8 Type 9
8 cm 10 cm 28 cm
SM-775-2 SM-911-14
SM-31-7
Type 11 Type 13
Type 12
22 cm 10 cm
14 cm
SM-775-12 SM-82-12
SM-776-4
Type 15 Type 16
Type 14
0 10 cm
615
18 cm
12 cm
SM-82-05
Type 17 SM-1005-13
Type 18
30 cm
SM-1029-02
Type 19
30 cm
SM-780-03
Type 20
0 10 cm
616
23 cm
SM-911-15
Type 21
2.5 cm
12 cm
SM-911-02 SM-4046-03
Type 22 Type 23
12 cm
SM-4227-14
Type 24
0 10 cm
617
Spoon
SM-276-03
SM-776-16
Strap handle Bottom Type 1
SM-776-01
SM-776-18 SM-911-8
Bottom Type 2 Bottom Type 3 SM-82-14
Disc
0 10 cm
Plate A-23. Wari pottery style typology.
618


SM-775-10
SM-776-05 SM-775-02
Type 1 Type 2
Type 3
Sot Sot
SM-776-11
SM-911-05
Type 4 Type 5

? cm
SM-778-02 SM-911-01
Type 6 Type 7
0 10 cm
Plate A-24. Wari pottery style typology. Decorated sherds.
619

Types 8 and 28 Type 9
Type 10 SM-778-03
Type 11
0 10 cm
620

SM-31-19 SM-31-18
Type 12 Type 13
0 5 cm

SM-82-13 SM-775-17
Types 15 and 16
Type 14
0 10 cm
0 5 cm
 
SM-778-06
Type 17 Type 18
0 10 cm
621
SM-781-05
Type 19 SM-923-03
Type 20
SM-1005-07
SM-82-12
Type 21
Type 22

SM-781-02
Type 23
SM-923-01
Type 24
0 5 cm
622
18 cm
SM-82-15
Type 25
? cm
? cm
SM-980-02
Type 26
SM-980-02
Type 27
0 5 cm
623
SM-777-01
Type 30
SM-1005-15
Type 29 Pativilca
Jar Type 1
12 cm 
SM-3185-04
SM-4227-14
Type 32
Type 31 MT-3138
0 10 cm
Plate A-29. Wari decorated sherds and Pativilca pottery styles.
624
MT-6019 MT-5818 MT-6823
Beaker Type 1 Beaker Type 2 Beaker Type 3
MT-3644
MT-3592
Pot Type 1
Beaker Type 4
MT-0027 MT-0027 MT-3633
Pot Type 2 Pot Type 3 Pot Type 4
0 10 cm
Plate A-30. Three-color Geometric pottery style typology. Vessels.
625
MT-3112 MT-0035
MT-3628
Jar Type 1 Jar Type 2 Jar Type 3
MT-3634 MT-3589 MT-7449

0 10 cm
626
MT-3615 MT-3605
MT-3021
Jar Type 7 Jar Type 9
Jar Type 8
MT-3632 MT-0017 MT-3588
0 10 cm
627
MT-3925 MT-0039 MT-0050
Jar Type 13 Jug Type 1 Jug Type 2
MT-3676
Bottle Type 1
0 10 cm
628
MT-6025 MT-6517
MT-6030
Open bowl Type 1 Open bowl Type 2 Beaker Type 1
MT-3851 MT-5125
MT-4153 MT-5822
Closed bowl Closed bowl Closed bowl Closed bowl

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
MT-5126 HSR-42
MT- 4208
Closed bowl Closed bowl
Closed bowl Type 6 Type 7
Type 5
0 10 cm
Plate A-34. Ychsma pottery style typology. Vessels.
629
MT-0055 MT-0325
MT-5548
MT-3534
MT-3947
0 10 cm
630
7
MT-3922 MT-3970
Pot Type 6 Pot Type 7 MT-3995

Pot Type 8
MT-4002
MT-5121
Pot Type 9
Pot Type 10
0 10 cm
631
C-49449 MT-3591
MT-3962
MT-3381
MT-4290
Pot Type 14 MT-4186
Pot Type 16
Pot Type 15
0 10 cm
632
MT-5777
MT-2888
Pot Type 17
Pot Type 18
C-51100
MT-5120 Pot Type 20
Pot Type 19
0 10 cm
633
MT-3787
MT-4691
MT-4374
Pot Type 23
Pot Type 22
Pot Type 21
MT-5546
MT-4646 MT-3862a
0 10 cm
Plate A-39. Ychsma pottery style typology. Vessels
634
MT-5952b MT-0336
MT-5098
Pot Type 27
MT-3029 MT-9967 MT-4763
0 10 cm
635
MT-5124
MT-3839 MT-3853
Pot Type 33
MT-3952 MT-4619 C-51769
0 10 cm
Plate A-41. Ychsma pottery style typology. Decorated sherds.
636
C-51748
Pot Type 39 MT-4955
Pot Type 40
MT-5627
Pot Type 41 MT-4450

Pot Type 42
0 10 cm
637
MT-2900
MT-4162
Pot Type 43
Pot Type 44
MT-4185 MT-4665
MT-4194
0 10 cm
638
MT-4724
MT-4749
MT-5022
Pot Type 50
MT-5440 MT-5783 MT-5821
0 10 cm
639
MT-5945
MT-5957 MT-5960
MT-5942b
Pot Type 58
MT-5989 0 10 cm
Pot Type 57
640
MT-5892b MT-4252 MT-4258
MT-4254
MT-4655 MT-5284
0 10 cm
641
111
MT-4047
MT-3061 MT-3213
MT-3393
MT-2834
MT-4184
0 10 cm
642
MT-4477
MT-4705 MT-4722
MT-5468 MT-5897
MT-5262
Pot Type 74
0 10 cm
643
MT-3712 MT-4173 MT-4229
MT-4931
MT-5075
Pot Type 80
Pot Type 81
MT-5062
Pot Type 82
0 10 cm
644
MT-5184 MT-5192
MT-5051
MT-5060 MT-3854
MT-3990
0 10 cm
645
MT-4202
MT-4056
MT-3994
Tipo 49
MT-0042 MT-4593
MT-4054
0 10 cm
646
MT-3991
MT-5892a Pot Type 96
Pot Type 95
MT-3872 MT-3599
0 10 cm
647
MT-4267
MT-4363
Pot Type 100
Pot Type 99
MT-4492
MT-4457
Pot Type 102
Pot Type 101
0 10 cm
648
MT-5202 MT-5360
MT-5097
Pot Type 105
MT-5563 MT-5685
MT-5796
Pot Type 108
0 10 cm
649
MT-5997 MT-5792 MT-3671 MT-3553
Pot Type 109 Pot Type 110 PotType 111 PotType 112
MT-3262 MT-3274 MT-3472
0 10 cm
650
MT-0036 MT-2854
MT-3580 MT-3659
0 10 cm
651
MT-3836 MT-5148 MT-3436
MT-0060
MT-3371
MT-3375
0 10 cm
652
C-51080 MT-3275
MT-3791
MT-2276
MT-3332
Jar Type 17 Jar Type 18 MT-0063
Jar Type 19
0 10 cm
653
HC-71
C-51508 MT-3203
MT-3198 MT-3421
MT-2948
0 10 cm
654
MT-3396
MT-3154
MT-3020
Jar Type 28
C-51149 MT-0043 C-43000
Jar Type 31
0 10 cm
655
MT-3396 MT-3097 MT-0030
MT-3698
C-49473
MT-3499
Jar Type 35
0 10 cm
656
MT-3091 MT-3459 MT-3589
MT-0213 MT-3710 MT-3377

0 10 cm
657
MT-3582
MT-3462
MT-3520
Jar Type 46
MT-3475
MT-3458 MT-3481
Jar Type 48
0 10 cm
658
MT-5471
MT-3853
MT-3484 Jar Type 52
MT-3661
MT-3668
Jar Type 53
Jar Type 54
0 10 cm
659
MT-0199
MT-2867
Jar Type 55
Jar Type 56
MT-3485
C-50679

0 10 cm
660
HSR-477
Jar Type 59
0 10 cm
Plate A-66. Ychsma pottery style typology. Vessel.
661
MT-2851 MT-3057 MT-3228
Jug Type 1 Jug Type 2 Jug Type 3
MT-4358
MT-3867
MT-3725
0 10 cm
662
MT-3868 MT-3583
MT-3873
MT-6934
MT-2850
MT-3665
Jug Type 10 Jug Type 12
Jug Type 11
0 10 cm
663
MT-2878
MT-0028
MT-2857
MT-3093
MT-5525
MT-0048
0 10 cm
664
MT-2856 MT-3578
MT-3670
Jug Type 19 Jug Type 20
Bottle Type 1
MT-5849
MT-3675
Rattle
Bottle Type 2
0 10 cm
665
14 cm 12 cm
16 cm
HSR-410 HSR-23
HSR-392
Type 1 Type 2
Type 3
14 cm 14 cm 14 cm
HSR-65
HSR-79
HSR-29
Type 4 Type 6
Type 5
14 cm 14 cm
14 cm
Soot
HSR-278 HSR-182 HSR-108
Type 7 Type 9
Type 8
0 10 cm
Plate A-71. Ychsma pottery style typology. Rim sherds.
666
20 cm 16 cm 12 cm
HSR-306 HSR-294
HSR-228
Type 11
Type 10 Type 12
16 cm 13 cm
16 cm
HSR-50 HSR-344 HSR-276
11 cm 14 cm
14 cm
Broken strap
MTS-06
SM-406-04 HSR-111
Type 18
Type 16 Type 17
0 10 cm
667
14 cm  
SM-5197-17 SM-5197-10
SM-4282-06
Type 20
Type 19 Type 21
18 cm 9 cm 12 cm
HC-55
HC-29
Magdalena-01 Type 23 Type 24

Type 22
10 cm 13 cm 10 cm
HSR-002 HSR-027 HSR-361
0 10 cm
668
14 cm 12 cm 10 cm
HSR-127
HSR-73 HSR-205
Type 28 Type 29
Type 30
14 cm 10 cm 11 cm
HSR-019
MTS-20
HSR-008
Type 31
Type 32 Type 33
12 cm 7 cm
14 cm
HSR-191
HSR-180 H21-54
Type 34
Type 35 Type 36
0 10 cm
669
16 cm 18 cm 12 cm
H21-03 HSR-075
SM-5197-11
12 cm 17 cm
18 cm
HSR-017 HSR-325 HSR-123
Type 41 Type 42
Type 40
11 cm 18 cm
HSR-471
H21-39
Type 43 Type 44
0 10 cm
670
28 cm
HSR-031
Type 45
32 cm
HSR-005
Type 46
40 cm
HSR-085
Type 47
0 10 cm
671
46 cm
HSR-128
Type 48
32 cm
SM-442
Type 49
30 cm 28 cm
HSR-114
HC-31
Type 51
Type 50
0 10 cm
672
22 cm Broken strap 22 cm
MTS-07
HSR-114
Type 53
Type 52
14 cm
24 cm
H.S.R. 420
MTS-23
Type 55
Type 54
3.5 cm
36 cm 3 cm
HSR-462
SM-4279-06 HSR-459
7 cm 18 cm
SM-4365-02
Type 59 0 10 cm Type 60
673
C-51140 MT-3886 MT-3909 MT-3909
Jar Type 1 Jar Type 2 Jar Type 3 Jar Type 4
MT-3545 MT-3545 MT-3792
Jar Type 5 Jar Type 6 Jug Type 1
0 10 cm
Plate A-79. Chancay pottery style typology. Vessels
674
Appendix B
Pottery analysis and archaeological contexts
Valley Site Number of

specimens
La Magdalena LM-52 (Huaca Huantille) 14
M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa) 464
Maranga M-15 (Mateo Salado I) 26
M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos) 20
M-141 (Huaca La Palma) 8
LL-14 (Makatampu) 2369
LL-59 (Huaca Concha) 81
La Legua LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu) 402
LL-64 (Huaca 9) 37
LL-75 (Huaca 21) 55
Total 3543
Table B-1: Pottery collections analyzed in the thesis.
B.1) LM-52 (Huaca Huantille):
Was the only archaeological site from La Magdalena Channel Valley, with a pottery
collection analyzed in this investigation. Three collections were worked. The first one was made
in 1958 by the archaeologists Rosa Fung and Edward Lanning. There is no report about its
provenience, and probably it was a surface collection. In the few notes found with the collection,
the site was called "Huaca de la Magdalena". The pottery was deposited in the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of San Marcos. Seven diagnostic fragments
were selected from this collection.
The second collection was composed of a vessel found in the facilities of the National Museum
of Archaeology, Anthropology and History of Peru. Except for the information that it comes from
“Huaca Wantille”, the circumstances under which it was found is unknown.
675
The third collection was made by the Metropolitan Deliberative Board in 1962. The site was
named at that time "Huaca Echenique" and the artefacts were deposited in the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology of San Marcos University. Six diagnostic sherds were selected for
analysis.
Style Specimen Type Ware Total

Ychsma Pot 93 Ychsma 3 1
Table B-2. Huaca Huantille collection in the National Museum of Archaeology.

Ychsma Rim sherd 47 Ychsma 3 5
48 Ychsma 2 1
Chancay Decorated sherd 1 Chancay 1 1
Total 7
Table B-3. Lanning’s Huaca Huantille Collection in the Museum of Archaeology of San Marcos
University

22 Ychsma 2 1
Ychsma Rim sherds 47 Ychsma 2 1
Ychsma 3 1
Bottom 4 Ychsma 2 2
Decorated sherd 6 Ychsma 2 1
Total 6
Table B-4 Metropolitan Deliberative Board’s collection from Huaca Huantille.
676
B.2 M-7 (Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa):
Was partially excavated by Hermilio Rosas in 1975 leaving an important collection of
archaeological materials deposited in the National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and
History of Peru. As was discussed in the previous chapter, there was a report of that work
reviewed by Rogger Ravines (1985:50), which unfortunately disappeared. That’s why the
recovered artifacts from this site do not have provenience information, and the only data available
about their associations are in the cards deposited in the bags containing the pottery, and what
Ravines summarized in his publication (Ravines 1985:50). According to Ravines, there are five
construction phases in Huaca Santa Rosa. The first one comprises simple walls made of boulders
in association with Ancon-style pottery. The second phase is composed by an architectonic fill
that covered the first stage and walls made of boulders and irregular small mud bricks with Ancon
pottery. The third phase is a new architectonic fill disposed in grids covering the early stages,
containing Ancon, Nieveria and “Huancho” (Ychsma) pottery styles. The fourth phase is a
pyramidal construction made with cubic mud bricks, and the fifth consisted of simple walls of
boulders and mud associated with "Huancho" (Ychsma) pottery style (Ravines 1985:50).
The information contained in the cards deposited in the bags with artifacts indicate that,
apparently, the site was divided in four zones called “Zone A”, “Zone B”, “Zone C” and “Zone
D” (ZA, ZB, ZC and ZD). The site was also divided in a grid system, each unit identified with a
code composed by a letter followed by a number. Apparently, each zone had its own grid, and that
is why there is, for instance, a Unit A1 for the Zone B and Zone C or a Unit B4 for the Zone B
and Zone C, etc. On the other hand, the information indicates up to 7 levels excavated in some of
these units, although it is unknown if those levels were based on arbitrary measures or followed a
sequence of superimposed layers. This makes it impossible to identify the contexts of the
677
specimens without reports. It should be also noted that many of the artifacts do not even have this
information because the cards are deteriorated and illegible. Due to this situation, it was decided
to analyze this pottery collection as a block ignoring the exact provenience, until a copy of the
report, if it still exists, appears somewhere, giving coherence to the information kept in the cards.
Specimen Type Ancon 1 Ancon 2 Ancon 3 Ancon 4 Ancon 5 Total
1 - - - 2 - 2
2 - - - - 1 1
Rim sherds 3 14 5 2 2 - 23
4 2 - - - - 2
5 1 1 - - - 2
6 1 - - - - 1
7 3 - - 1 - 4
1 - - - 1 - 1
2 1 - - 1 - 2
Decorated 3 2 1 - 3 1 7
sherds 4 - 1 - 1 - 2
5 1 - - 1 - 2
6 - - - 1 - 1
7 - - - 1 - 1
Total 25 8 2 14 2 51
Table B-5 Distribution of Ancon Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
678
Decorated
sherds
31%
Rim sherds
69%
Chart B-1. Relative frequency of Ancon types in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
Ancon 5
4%
Ancon 4
27% Ancon 1
49%
Ancon 3 Ancon 2
4% 16%
Chart B-2. Relative frequency of Ancon wares in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
679
Specimen Type Lima 1 Lima 2 Total
Trumpet - 1 1
1 - 2 2
8 2 - 2
Rim sherds 9 1 - 1
12 - 1 1
14 - 1 1
2 - 2 2
3 - 2 2
6 - 1 1
7 - 3 3
9a - 2 2
9b - 2 2
Decorated sherds 17 - 7 7
21 - 1 1
23 - 3 3
35 - 2 2
36 - 1 1
37 - 1 1
38 - 2 2
Total 3 34 37
Table B-6. Distribution of Lima style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
680
Lima 1
8%
Lima 2
92%
Chart B-3. Relative frequency of Lima wares in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
Trumpet
3%
Rim sherds
19%
Decorated
sherds
78%
Chart B-4. Relative frequency Lima ceramic types in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
681
Open
bowls
29%
Pot or jars
71%
Chart B-5. Relative frequency of Lima ceramic shape types distribution in Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa base on rim sherds.
Specimen Type Nieveria 2 Nieveria 3 Nieveria 4 Total
Bottle 1 - 1 2
Decorated 1 - 1 - 1
sherds 2 - 1 - 1
Total 1 2 1 4
Table B-7. Distribution of Nieveria Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
682
Specimen Type Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y9 Total
1 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Bowls 7 - 1 - - - - - 1
64 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Pots 82 - - - 1 - - - - 1
37 - - 1 - - - - - 1
Jars 59 - 1 - - - - - - 1
1 - 2 - - - - - - 2
2 - - - - - 1 - - 1
3 - - 1 - - - - - 1
4 - 6 - - - - - - 6
5 - 18 2 1 - - - - 21
Rim 6 - - 2 1 - - - - 3
sherds 7 2 - - - - - - - 2
8 - 2 - - - - - - 2
9 - 3 - - - - - - 3
10 - 4 - - - - - - 4
11 - 6 3 1 - - 1 - 11
12 - - - - - - 1 - 1
Table B-8. Distribution of Ychsma Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
683
13 - - 1 - - - - - 1
14 - - - - - - - 1 1
15 - 3 - 1 - - - - 4
16 - 2 - - - - - - 2
17 - - - - - 1 1 - 2
25 - 14 4 1 - - - - 19
26 - 6 - - - - - - 6
27 - 10 - 1 - - 1 - 12
28 - 7 - - - - - - 7
30 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Rim
32 - 5 - - - - - - 5
sherds
33 - 6 - - - - - - 6
34 - 1 - - 1 - - - 2
35 - 5 - 1 - - - - 6
39 - 2 1 1 - - - - 4
40 - 3 - - - - - - 3
41 - - 1 - - - - - 1
42 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
44 - 1 1 1 - - - - 3
Table B-8. Distribution of Ychsma Style specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa
(continuation).
684
45 - 3 1 1 5 - - - 10
46 - 3 - - - - - - 3
47 - 5 6 - - - - - 11
48 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Rim
49 - - 1 - - - - - 1
sherds 50 - 1 - - - - - - 1
51 - 1 - - - - - - 1
52 - 3 - - - - - - 3
55 - 1 - - - - - - 1
57 - - 1 - - - - - 1
58 - 1 - - - - - - 1
1 - 6 - 1 - - - - 7
2 - 9 - - - - - - 9
Strap 3 - 8 - - - - - - 8
sherds 4 - 20 1 5 - - - - 26
5 - 1 - - - - 1 - 2
6 - 34 9 2 1 - - - 46
7 - 1 - - - - - - 1
1 1 16 5 - - - - - 22
2 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Decorated 3 - 1 - - - - - - 1
sherds 4 - 1 - - - - - - 1
(continuation).
685
5 - 7 1 - - - - - 8
6 1 3 1 - - - - - 5
7 - - - 1 - - - - 1
8 - 1 - - - - - - 1
9 - 1 - - - - - - 1
10 - 6 - - - - - - 6
11 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Decorated 12 - 2 - - - - - - 2
sherds 13 - 1 - - - - - - 1
14 - 2 - - - - - - 2
15 - 2 - - - - - - 2
16 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
17 - 1 - - - - - - 1
18 1 - - - - - - - 1
19 - 1 - - - - - - 1
20 - 1 - - - - - - 1
1 1 4 - - - - - - 5
2 1 1 - 1 - - - - 3
Bottom 3 - 1 - - - - - 1 2
sherds 4 - 2 1 - 1 - 1 - 5
5 - 1 - - - - 1 - 2
(continuation).
686
Spinning - 1 1 - - - - - 2
wheel
Human - 2 - - - - - - 2
figurines
Camelid - 1 - - - - - - 1
figurine
Modified - 2 - - - - - - 2
sherd
Lid 1 - 3 - - - - - - 3
Total 7 277 46 21 8 2 7 2 370
(continuation).
Y4 Y5 Others
6% 2% 5%
Y3
12%
Y2
75%
Chart B-6. Relative frequency of Ychsma specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa by wares.
“Others” include Ychsma 1, Ychsma 6, Ychsma 7 and Ychsma 9.
687
Specimen Styles
Ancon Lima Niveria Ychsma Chancay Total
Rim sherds 37 8 2 175 - 222
Handle sherds - - - 99 - 99
Decorated 14 29 2 60 1 106
sherds
Bottom - - - 17 - 17
sherds
Musical - 1 - - - 1
instruments
Spinning - - - 2 - 2
wheel
Human - - - 2 - 2
figurine
Camelid - - - 1 - 1
figurine
Modified - - - 2 - 2
sherd
Lid sherds - - - 3 - 3
Vessels - - - 9 - 9
Total 51 38 4 370 1 464
Table B-9. Distribution of pottery styles specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
688
Chancay
0%
Lima
Ancon 8%
11%
Nieveria
1%
Ychsma
80%
Chart B-7. Relative frequency of pottery styles specimens in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
B.3 M-12 - M-16 (Mateo Salado): In the facilities of the Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology of San Marcos University there are two boxes containing sherds collected by the
Metropolitan Deliberative Board in 1962. The information about their provenience is very brief
but, apparently, comes from surface collections made in huacas I (M-14), II (M-13), III (M-12)
and V (M-16). One hundred per cent of the analyzed specimens correspond to the Ychsma style,
the majority being rim fragments. There is also a fragment of a camelid figurine with a cotton
thread tied around the neck.
689
Specimen Type Y1 Y2 Y3 Total
8 - 1 - 1
10 - - 1 1
12 - 1 - 1
20 - - 1 1
25 - 2 - 2
29 - 2 - 2
31 1 - - 1
Rim sherds 35 - 1 - 1
44 - 1 - 1
47 - 4 4 8
48 - - 1 1
53 - 1 - 1
54 1 - - 1
Strap sherds 3 - 1 - 1
4 - 1 - 1
Decorated 21 - 1 - 1
sherds
Camelid figurine 1 - - 1
Total 3 16 7 26
Table B-10. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in Mateo Salado.
690
Ychsma 1
11%
Ychsma 3
27%
Ychsma 2
62%
Chart B-8. Relative frequency of Ychsma style specimens in Mateo Salado.
B.4 M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos):
The analyzed collection from this pyramid is from a surface collection made by the
Metropolitan Deliberative Board in 1962 and deposited in the Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology of San Marcos University. Twenty diagnostic sherds were selected for analysis.
691
Types Wares Total
Lima 2 Ychsma 1 Ychsma 2 Ychsma 3 Ychsma 7
3 1 - - - - 1
Decorated 7 1 - - - - 1
sherds 46 1 - - - - 1
15 - - - 1 - 1
29 - - - - 1 1
45 - - 1 - - 1
Rim 47 - - 1 7 - 8
sherds 53 - - 1 - - 1
59 - - 1 - - 1
Strap 4 - - - 1 - 1
sherds 5 - 1 1 - - 2
Lid - 1 - - 1
Total 3 2 7 8 1 20
Table B-11. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in Huaca Tres Palos.
692
Lima
15%
Ychsma
85%
Chart B-9. Relative frequency of pottery styles in the Huaca Tres Palos.
B.5 M-141 (Huaca La Palma):
Deposited in the facilities of the “Park of the Legends” Zoo, there is a very important
collection of numerous vessels recovered over time, especially during the construction of the Zoo
in the 1960's, from several buildings of the Maranga Archaeological group. Among the numerous
vessels there is a group of 8 double-spout bottles from the Topara tradition. Although there is no
data about the circumstances of their discovery, the information in the inventories indicates that
they were found somewhere near Huaca La Palma (M-141).
693
Specimen Type Topara 1 Total
1 4 4
Bottle 2 1 1
3 1 1
Total 6 6
Table B-12. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in Huaca La Palma.
B.6 LL-10 Makatampu:
The National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and History of Peru keeps a large and
important collection of pottery vessels and other archaeological artifacts such as textiles, engraved
bottle gourds, wood instruments, metal and human remains funerary contexts recovered during
the rescue work carried out at in this site in 1945 before it was completely demolished.
Unfortunately, the records made are very bad and incomplete, and it is impossible to reconstruct
the funerary contexts and their stratigraphic locations within the occupation sequence of the site.
Therefore, in this research the analysis of the pottery collection was made in block, dividing the
specimens by styles, types, and potteries. The records of the Museum from the 1950’s indicate the
existence of 3202 pottery vessels. I found 2370 vessels in the deposits of the Museum. The
whereabouts of the other 832 are unknown, but it is possible that they are in different parts of he
Museum without records of their location.
694
Types Styles Total
Lima Wari Pativilca Three- Ychsma Chancay
color
Geometric
Open bowls - 1 - - 3 - 4
Closed - - - - 12 - 12
bowls
Beakers - - - 4 2 - 6
Pots 2 - - 9 1720 - 1731
Jars - 1 1 20 523 18 563
Bottles - - - 1 3 - 4
Jugs - - - 3 52 1 56
Figurines - - - - 3 - 3
Rattles - - - - 2 - 2
Unidentified - - - - 1 - 1
vessel
Total 2382
Table B-13. Distribution of pottery specimens in Makatampu.
695
Chancay Others Three-color
1% 0% Geometric
2%
Ychsma
97%
Chart B-10. Relative frequency of pottery styles distribution at Makatampu. “Others” includes
Lima, Wari and Pativilca.
Jugs Others
2% 1%
Jars
24%
Pots
73%
Chart B-11. Relative frequency of pottery types distribution at Makatampu. “Others” includes
dishes, bowls, beakers, bottles, figurines and rattles.
696
Types Lima 1 Lima 2 Total
1 1 - 1
Pot 2 - 1 1
Total 1 1 2
Table B-14. Distribution of Lima Pottery Style specimens in the Makatampu collection.
Types Wari 1 Total
Open bowl 1 1 1
Jar 1 1 1
Total 2 2
Table B-15. Wari pottery distribution in the Makatampu collection.
Types Pativilca 1 Total
Jar 1 1 1
Table B-16. Pativilca style distribution in the Makatampu collection.
697
Types Three-color Geometric wares Total
TG 1 TG 2 TG 3
Bottle 1 1 - - 1
1 1 - - 1
2 1 - - 1
3 2 - - 2
4 - - 1 1
5 1 - - 1
6 1 1 - 2
7 2 - - 2
8 4 - - 4
Jars 9 2 - - 2
10 2 - - 2
11 - 1 - 1
12 - 1 - 1
13 - 1 - 1
Unidentified 2 - - 2
Jugs 1 2 1 - 3
2 - - 1 1
1 2 - - 2
Pots 2 1 - - 1
3 1 - - 1
4 1 - - 1
1 - 1 - 1
Beakers 2 1 - - 1
3 - 1 - 1
4 1 - - 1
Total 28 7 2 37
Table B-17. Three-color Geometric Style distribution in the Makatampu Collection.
698
TG 3
5%
TG 2
19%
TG 1
76%
Chart B-12. Relative frequency of Three-color Geometric wares in the Makatampu collection.
Beakers Bottles
11% 3%
Pots
13%
Jugs
11% Jars
62%
Chart B-13. Relative frequency of Three-color Geometric types in the Makatampu collection.
699
Types Ychsma Wares Total
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
Open bowls 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1
2 2 - - - - - - - 2
Beakers 1 1 1 - - - - - - 2
1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 2
2 - 2 1 - - - - - 3
Close bowls 3 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
4 - - - 1 - - - - 1
5 1 1 - - - - - - 2
6 1 1 - - - - - - 2
1 - 3 - - - - - - 3
2 - - - - - - - 1 1
3 2 1 - - - - - - 3
4 1 - - - - - - - 1
5 - 1 - 1 - - - - 2
6 - 2 - - - - - - 2
7 - - - - - - 1 - 1
8 10 2 - - - - - - 12
9 1 1 - - - - - - 2
10 30 7 - - - - - - 37
11 2 2 - - - - - - 4
12 1 - - 1 - - - - 2
13 45 10 - 1 - - - - 56
14 - 3 - - - - - - 3
15 3 4 - 4 - - - - 11
Pots 16 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
17 11 79 10 - - - - - 100
18 2 4 - - - - - - 6
19 1 - - - - - - - 1
20 - 2 2 - - - - - 4
21 17 10 - - - - - - 27
22 5 2 - - - - - - 7
23 3 1 - - - - - - 4
24 1 2 - - - - - - 3
25 - 1 - - - - - - 1
26 8 5 - - - - 1 - 14
27 12 3 1 - - - - - 16
28 - - 1 - - - - - 1
29 1 9 - - - - - - 10
30 - 4 2 1 - - - - 7
31 1 3 - - - - - - 4
32 10 17 1 - - - - - 28
33 - - - - - - 1 - 1
34 1 - - - - - - - 1
35 42 16 3 - - 1 - - 62
36 19 1 - - - - - - 20
37 8 1 - - - - - - 9
38 126 35 1 - - - - - 162
39 50 17 - - 1 - - - 68
Table B-18. Ychsma style distribution in the Makatampu Collection.
700
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
40 3 - - - - - - - 3
41 - 1 - - - - - - 1
42 12 56 21 4 1 - 1 - 95
43 1 6 1 - - - - - 8
44 2 1 - - - - - - 3
45 2 1 - - - - - - 3
46 1 2 - - - - - - 3
47 6 2 - - - - - - 8
48 15 24 6 2 - - - - 47
49 3 1 - - - - - - 4
50 14 25 8 - - - - - 47
51 1 - - - - - - - 1
52 1 1 - - - - - - 2
53 - 1 - - - - - - 1
54 1 5 1 - - - - - 7
55 2 6 4 - - - - - 12
56 - 10 3 - - - - - 13
57 - 6 1 - - - - - 7
58 - 1 - - - - - - 1
59 - 4 1 - - 1 - - 6
60 2 1 - - - - - - 3
Pots 61 6 - - - - - - - 6
62 3 1 - - - - - - 4
63 3 - - - - - - - 3
64 10 32 14 3 - - - - 59
65 1 4 - - - - - - 5
66 9 36 3 2 - - - - 50
67 4 14 2 - - - - - 20
68 - 3 - - - - - - 3
69 1 - - - - - - - 1
70 1 4 1 - - - - - 6
71 4 13 4 1 - - - - 22
72 26 11 1 - - - - - 38
73 5 - - - - - - - 5
74 8 40 9 - - - - - 57
75 1 11 - - - - - - 12
76 1 1 - - - - - - 2
77 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
78 7 8 - 1 - - - - 16
79 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
80 1 - - - - - - - 1
81 1 1 - - - - - - 2
82 11 17 - 2 - 1 - - 31
83 2 2 - 2 - - - - 6
84 - - - 1 - - - - 1
85 - 4 - - - - - - 4
86 - 8 1 3 - - - - 12
Table B-18. Ychsma style distribution in the Makatampu Collection (continuation).
701
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
87 1 4 - - - - - - 5
88 65 11 - - - - - - 76
89 1 - - - - - - - 1
90 2 - - - - - - - 2
91 2 - - - - - 1 - 3
92 2 - - - - - - - 2
93 9 38 9 1 - - - - 57
94 3 19 3 - - - - - 25
95 - 10 - - - - - - 10
96 3 - - - - - - - 3
97 1 6 1 - - - 1 - 9
98 1 - - - - - - - 1
Pots
99 9 7 - - - - - - 16
100 7 2 - - - - - - 9
101 1 14 2 - - - - - 17
102 1 - - - - - - - 1
103 6 2 - - - 1 - - 9
104 1 7 1 - - - - - 9
105 4 35 8 - - - - - 47
106 2 - - - - - - - 2
107 1 3 - - - - - - 4
108 3 11 2 - - - - - 16
109 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
110 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
111 - 1 1 - - - - - 2
112 1 5 - - - - - - 6
Undefined 11 25 3 - - 1 1 - 41
1 2 7 1 - - - - - 10
2 - 2 - - - - - - 2
3 - 1 - - - - - - 1
4 - 3 3 - - - - - 6
5 - - 1 - - - - - 1
6 - 1 - - - - - - 1
7 - 5 2 - - - - - 7
8 1 2 - - - 1 1 - 5
9 1 2 - - - - - - 3
10 - 2 - - - - 25 - 27
11 - 2 - - - - - - 2
Jars
12 - - - - - - 1 - 1
13 - - - - - - 6 - 6
14 1 3 - - - - - - 4
15 3 2 - - - - - - 5
16 1 - - - - - - - 1
17 1 - - - - - - 1 2
18 - 3 1 - - - - - 4
19 2 6 2 - - - 1 - 11
20 7 13 1 1 - 1 - - 23
21 3 4 - - - - - - 7
702
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
22 1 4 1 - - - - - 6
23 1 - - - - - - - 1
24 - 2 . . 1 - - - 3
25 3 1 1 - - - - - 5
26 - 4 - - - - - - 4
27 - 1 - - - - - - 1
28 13 52 14 - - - 1 - 80
29 3 16 1 - - - - - 20
30 5 13 - - - - - - 18
31 2 41 10 1 - - 1 - 55
32 - 3 - - - - - - 3
33 2 1 - - - - - - 3
34 6 31 4 1 1 - 1 - 44
35 - 2 - - - - - - 2
36 - 1 - - - - 2 - 3
37 6 14 1 - - 1 - - 22
Jars 38 - 7 2 - 1 - - - 10
39 1 1 - - - - - - 2
40 - - - - - - 8 - 8
41 1 17 3 - - - - - 21
42 1 - - - - - - - 1
43 - 1 - - - - - - 1
44 - 3 - - - - - - 3
45 - 2 - - - 1 - - 3
46 - 1 - - - - - - 1
47 1 - - - - - - - 1
48 1 2 - - - - - - 3
49 1 1 - - - - - - 2
50 - 1 - - - - - - 1
51 - 2 - - - - 1 - 3
52 - 1 - - - - - - 1
53 - 2 - - - - - - 2
54 1 - - - - - - - 1
55 - 1 - - - - - - 1
56 1 3 - - - - - - 4
57 - 1 - - - - - - 1
58 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Undefined 15 26 5 1 3 2 1 - 53
1 1 11 - - - - 1 - 13
2 1 1 - - - - - - 2
3 1 2 - - - - - - 3
4 2 - - - - - - - 2
Jugs 5 1 3 - - - - - - 4
6 - - - - - - 1 - 1
7 - - - - - 1 - - 1
8 - 1 - - - - - - 1
9 2 1 - - - 1 - - 4
10 1 - - - - - - - 1
703
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
11 - - - - - 1 - 1
12 1 1 - - - - - - 2
13 1 - - - - - - - 1
14 - 1 - - - - - - 1
15 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Jugs 16 1 2 - - - - - - 3
17 - 1 - - - - - - 1
18 - 1 - - - - - - 1
19 - 2 - - - - - - 2
20 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Undefined 4 1 - - - - 1 - 6
01 1 - - - - - - - 1
Bottles 02 - 1 - - - - - - 1
Undefined - - - - - - 1 - 1
Figurines - 1 1 - - - 1 - 3
Rattles 1 1 - - - - - - 2
Undefined specimen - 1 - - - - - - 1
Total 831 1176 193 35 8 14 62 2 2312
Jugs Others
2% 1%
Jars
23%
Pots
74%
Chart B-14. Relative frequency of Ychsma pottery types in the Makatampu collection. “Other”
includes bottles, figurines, rattles, closed and open bowls, and the unidentified specimen.
704
Ychsma 7 Others
3% 2%
Ychsma 3
8%
Ychsma 1
36%
Ychsma 2
51%
Chart B-15. Relative frequency of Ychsma wares in the collection of Makatampu. “Others”
includes Ychsma 4, Ychsma 5, and Ychsma 6.
Chancay wares
Types Chancay 1 Chancay 2 Total
1 1 - 1
2 4 2 6
3 2 2 4
Jars 4 1 1 2
5 1 1 2
6 - 1 1
Unidentified 1 1 2
Jug 1 - 1 1
Total 10 9 19
Table B-19. Chancay style distribution in the Makatampu Collection.
705
ChancayOthers
1% 0% Three-
color
Geometric
2%
Ychsma
97%
Chart B-16. Relative frequency of pottery styles at Makatampu. “Others” includes Lima, Wari
and Pativilca.
B.7 LL-59 (Huaca Concha):
The collection of the Huaca Concha (LL-59) comes from the rescue work made at the site in
1993 during the reconstruction of the stadium of the University of San Marcos that was built in
the Decade of 1940 on the eastern flank of the huaca. Unfortunately reports of this work are not
known and the rescued work was deposited in the facilities of the School of Archaeology of the
University. It should be noted that the work was rushed, due to the progress of the reconstruction
of the Stadium, and it was done by students without a professional archaeologist in charge. This
generated a poor and disorganized record.
The collection comprised 80 specimens, diagnostic sherds and complete and partially complete
vessels of the Lima, Nieveria and Ychsma styles. The information on the cards in the bags with
specimens indicates that all of them come from the South Hole done at the top of the pyramid
706
during the construction of washrooms. Based on this information and Echevarria (2004) and what
I observed at that time, it can be argued that there were two types of contexts in the South Hole:
1. Removals made by the construction machines of the Lima architecture and fills where the
Ychsma burials were put. Many of these burials were also destroyed by the machines, which
explains the high degree of fragmentation of some of the vessels. Fifty-nine specimens come from
this context.
2. Burials with complete or broken vessels. The burials that have pottery vessels as offerings
were: “Burial 3” (5 vessels), “Burial 7” (1 vessel), “Burial 8” (1 vessel), “Burial in a palisade” (1
vessel) and “Funerary Bundle A” (6 vessels). Echevarria said that in that hole, 5 funerary contexts
were found, three in funerary boxes made with maize and reed canes tied with vegetable fiber
ropes (burials A, B, and C) and two simple burial, funerary bundles without boxes (burials D and
E). Other burials were destroyed by the machinery, so other pottery vessels recovered in the site
could belong to those other burials.
Burial A had, as funerary offerings, six vessels and four bottle gourds cut as dishes put around
the funerary box. Burial B was two meters southward of the first one. There is no registered
funerary offering. Burial C was destroyed by the machines, and there are no records about
associations. Burials D and E did not have funerary offerings.
707
Styles Types Total
Decorated Rims Handles Vessels Spinning
sherds wheels
Lima 42 - - - - 42
Nievería 4 - - - - 4
Ychsma 1 7 6 18 2 34
Total 47 7 6 18 2 80
Table B-20. Distribution of pottery specimens in Huaca Concha.
Ychsma
42%
Lima
53%
Nievería
5%
Chart B-17. Relative frequency of pottery styles of analyzed specimens from Huaca Concha.
708
Spin
wheels
3%
Vessels
22%
Handles Decorated
7% sherds
Rims 59%
9%
Chart B-18. Relative frequency of diagnostic specimens in the Huaca Concha by types.
Wares Decorated sherds Rims Total
Lima 2 33 8 41
Lima 3 1 - 1
Total 34 8 42
Table B-21. Distribution of Lima style specimens in Huaca Concha.
709
Lima 3
2%
Lima 2
98%
Chart B-19. Relative frequency of Lima diagnostic specimens in Huaca Concha by wares.
Rim sherds
19%
Decorated
sherds
81%
Chart B-20. Relative frequency of Lima diagnostic specimens in Huaca Concha by wares
710
Types Lima wares Total
Lima 2 Lima 3
2 9 - 9
5 1 - 1
7 1 - 1
8 4 - 4
9a 4 - 4
9b 9 - 9
Decorated 9c 1 - 1
sherds 13 1 - 1
15 3 - 3
21 3 1 4
32 1 - 1
37 1 - 1
39 1 - 1
40 1 - 1
41 1 - 1
Total 41 1 42
Table B-22. Lima Pottery Style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection.
711
Lima 3
2%
Lima 2
98%
Chart B-21. Relative frequency of Lima wares in the Huaca Concha collection.
Types Nieveria wares Total
Niveria 1 Nieveria 3
9 1 - 1
Decorated 10 1 - 1
sherds 11 - 1 1
12 - 1 1
Total 2 2 4
Table B-23. Nieveria style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection.
712
Nieveria 2 Nieveria 1
50% 50%
Chart B-22. Relative frequency of Nieveria wares in the Huaca Concha collection.
713
Ychsma wares
Types 2 3 4 5 9 Total
13 1 - - - - 1
Jars 22 1 - - - - 1
32 2 - - - 2 4
42 4 1 - - 1 6
Pots 57 1 - - - 1 2
72 - - 1 - - 1
82 1 - - - - 1
93 1 - - - 1 2
15 1 - - - - 1
23 1 - - - - 1
Rim 24 1 - - - - 1
sherds 35 1 - - - - 1
47 - 1 - - - 1
50 - - - 1 - 1
1 1 - - - - 1
Handle 3 2 - - - 1 3
Sherds 4 1 - - - - 1
6 1 - - - - 1
Decorated 29 1 - - - - 1
sherd
Table B-24. Ychsma style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection.
714
Ychsma wares
Types 2 3 4 5 9 Total
Spin wheels 1 - 1 - - 2
Total 22 2 2 1 6 33
Table B-24. Ychsma style distribution in the Huaca Concha Collection (continuation).
Ychsma 9
Ychsma 5 20%
3%
Ychsma 4
6% Ychsma 2
65%
Ychsma 3
6%
Chart B-23. Relative frequency of Ychsma wares in the Huaca Concha collection.
715
Spin wheels
6%
Jars
6%
Handle
sherds
18%
Rim sherds Pots

23% 47%
Figure B-24. Relative frequency of Ychsma Style types in the Huaca Concha Collection.
B.8 LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu). West Passage of the Platform 2:
The Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu is located at the northern section of the pyramid and is 5.6
m high with respect to Platform 1, which is located immediately to the north. This platform has a
main entrance in the middle section looking north which leads to two passages, one to the east
that, after making zigzag turns, goes to a staircase that provides access to several small rooms in
the summit of the platform. The other access is a narrow passageway and ramp that goes towards
the west that also allows access to the rooms in the upper part of the platform. All the visible
architecture in Platform 2 is made with small mud-bricks in technique B, as well as large mud-
bricks, and several of the walls were painted in yellow. This platform had already been excavated
in the 1960's, but there no known report about that work. However, some sections of the platform
716
remained unexcavated, including the west passage that could be worked in 1999-2000. Alarcon
had already pointed out that:
“…this narrow passage was totally covered by mud-bricks, boulders, earth clods, garbage of
canes with leaves, dry vegetables, maize leaves and a great amount of pottery fragments of
different types” (My translation) (Alarcón 1971:95).
The excavation made in 1999-2000 revealed that this architectonic fill was deposited in a
single event in order to seal the ramp and passage. The fill, identified as Layer 2, was deposited in
the following way: a first layer 20 cm thick was deposited on the floor of the passage-ramp
composed of earth with abundant small Lima mud bricks. In this layer was also placed a small
dog with the legs and snout tied with a vegetable fiber rope (level e). Then, a layer composed of
garbage consisting mainly of marine shells, ash, burnt bones, and sherds (level d); then a layer 12
cm thick of loose earth mixed with clods of earth (level c). Over it, was put an 18 cm layer of
abundant garbage composed of marine shells, plant remains, many of them charred, pebbles and
fragments of textiles (level b). A Wari quipu (a recording device made of cotton) was discovered
in this level of the fill. Finally there was a layer 40 cm thick composed of abundant dry
vegetables, sherds, marine shells and three pyro-engraved gourds with iconography of the Epoch
2 of the Middle Horizon Period (level a) (Narvaez 2000; Shady et al. 2000:5). A preliminary
analysis of the pottery directly associated with the quipu revealed the existence of Lima, Nievería
and Pachacamac (Wari) styles (Shady et al. 2000:5, 16-21).
The pottery of the whole passage was analyzed for this thesis. In total 138 specimens, including
some partially complete vessels, were studied. Based on the information of the cards with the
information of provenance, these artifacts came from levels a and b, although in some cases the
717
only information was that it came from layer 2, the architectonic seal in the passage. Another
group of artifacts came from layer 1, the superficial layer composed of small mud bricks and
loose earth mixed in part with the upper part of layer 2.
The pottery recovered in this fill belongs to Late Lima, Nieveria and Wari (especially Atarco,
Pachacamac and Chakipampa styles) but no Middle Lima or Ychsma, found in other parts of the
pyramid. This fact and that some sherds from different levels could be joined together forming
partially complete vessels, allowed that this collection could be analyzed as a single temporal unit
that corresponded to the abandonment of the passage at some point of the Middle Horizon Period
Epoch 2.
Figure B-1. Huaca Aramburu with the excavated areas (Google Earth).
718
Styles Types Total
Decorated Vessels Rims Strap Bottoms Spoon Modified
sherds handles sherd
Lima 16 - - - - 1 - 17
Nievería 15 4 - 4 - - - 23
Wari 24 11 43 12 6 1 1 98
Total 55 15 43 16 6 2 1 138
Table B-25. Distribution of pottery style specimens in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu.
Lima
12%
Nieveria
17%
Wari
71%
Chart B-24. Relative frequency of pottery styles in the Western Passage at Platform 2 in Huaca
Aramburu.
719
Bottoms Spoon Disc
4% 1% 1%
Handles
12%
Decorated
sherds
40%
Rim sherds
31%
Vessels
11%
Chart B-25. Relative frequency of pottery types in the Western Passage at Platform 2 in Huaca
Aramburu.
Lima 3
24%
Lima 2
76%
Chart B-26. Relative frequency of Lima wares in the Western Passage at Platform 2 in Huaca
Aramburu.
720
Types Lima wares Total
Lima 2 Lima 3
6 1 - 1
8 4 - 4
9a 1 - 1
9b 1 - 1
Decorated sherds 9c - 1 1
15 1 - 1
21 2 2 4
35 1 1 2
38 1 -
Spoon 1 - 1
Total 13 4 17
Table B-26. Distribution of Lima style specimens in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in Huaca
Aramburu.
721
Types Wari wares Total
Wari 1 Wari 2 Wari 3 Wari 4 Wari 5
1 - 9 2 1 - 12
2 - 3 - 1 - 4
3 - 1 - - - 1
4 1 - - - - 1
5 - - - - 1 1
6 1 - - - - 1
7 - 1 - - - 1
8 - 1 - - - 1
Rim sherds 9 - 1 - - - 1
10 - 1 - - - 1
11 - 1 - - - 1
12 - - - - 1 1
13 - - - - 1 1
14 - - - - 2 2
15 - - - - 1 1
16 - - - - 1 1
17 - 1 1 - - 2
18 - 3 - - 1 4
19 - - 1 - - 1
20 - 1 - - 1 2
Table B-27. Distribution of Wari pottery style specimens in the Western Passage of
Platform 2 in Huaca Aramburu
722
Rim sherds 21 - - - - 2 2
22 1 - - - - 1
Bottom 1 1 1 - - - 2
sherds 2 - 2 1 - 1 4
2 2 - - - - 2
4 - 1 - - - 1
5 - 1 - - - 1
6 - 1 - - - 1
9 - 1 1 - - 2
11 - 2 - - - 2
Decorated 12 1 - - - - 1
sherds 13 - 1 - - - 1
14 1 - - - - 1
16 - 1 - - - 1
19 3 - - - - 3
21 1 - - - - 1
22 - 1 - - - 1
23 1 - - - - 1
Platform 2 in Huaca Aramburu (continuation).
723
24 - 2 - - - 2
Decorated 26 1 - - - - 1
sherds 29 - - 1 - - 1
30 - 1 - - - 1
Handles 1 - - - - 10 10
2 - - 1 - 1 2
Beaker 1 - - 1 - - 1
1 - 6 - 1 - 7
Open bowls 2 - 1 - - - 1
3 - - - - 1 1
Pot 1 - - - - 1 1
Spoon - - - - 1 1
Disc - - - - 1 1
Total 14 45 9 3 27 98
Platform 2 in Huaca Aramburu (continuation).
724
Wari 1
Wari 5 14%
28%
Wari 4
3% Wari 2
46%
Wari 3
9%
Chart B-27. Relative frequency of Wari wares in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in Huaca
Aramburu collection.
Bottoms Spoon Disc

6% 1% 1%
Handles
12% Decorated
sherds
25%
Vessels
11%
Rim
sherds
44%
Chart B-28. Relative frequency of Wari pottery types in the Western Passage of Platform 2 in
Huaca Aramburu collection.
725
B.9 LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu) the Southern Slope:
Was excavated between 2001 and 2002 as part of the project of research of the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of San Marcos. The recovered artifacts were
deposited in some facilities near the stadium of the University of San Marcos under the
administration of the Museum. These included ceramics, plant debris, textile fragments, bones,
marine shells, etc. In this thesis only the pottery was analyzed.
The southern extreme of Huaca Aramburu was cut during the construction of “Progress
Avenue” in 1924 (today called “Republic of Venezuela”) exposing very old architectonic phases.
Eventually, the cut collapsed forming a slope. The excavations in this part of the building were
made in order to establish the temporal association of that architecture.
The excavations discovered the oldest architectonic phases detected so far in the site, with
structures made of small cubic mud-bricks in technique D, forming walls and small enclosures
with narrow accesses and passages.
In total, 267 diagnostic ceramic specimens, including sherds and complete or partially
complete vessels, were analyzed. Each bag had a card with information of the context, including
unit, layer and level. According to this information, the analyzed specimens come from the
following units: S303-317/W80-91 (14 specimens), S303-317/W83-97 (133 specimens), S314-
317/W97-99 (25 specimens), S317-319/W83-97 (91 specimens) and trench 1 (4 specimens) from
up to 6 layers, although this was not the case in all the excavated units.
Unfortunately there is no detailed report of these works. There is, however, some information in
the report of the excavations of 2001 (Shady 2001) for the unit S305-317 /W83-97 with the
following stratigraphic sequence:
726
Layer 1: Is the superficial layer which covers the entire pyramid, and which in this sector was
between 0.33 m at the northern top of slope and 2.8 m thick in the southern part. It was composed
of loose earth mixed with abundant scattered small Lima mud-bricks, pebbles, sherds, bones and
modern waste. Once this layer was removed, two Ychsma funerary bundles and four enclosures
called 1, 2, 3, and 4, three corridors called 1, 2 and 3 and some additional walls all covered with
archeological architectonic fill were found. This architecture is composed of small cubic mud
bricks in technique D, with at least four construction phases in which new walls were added until
finally the enclosures were closed down (Shady 2002)
Layer 2 was found in enclosures 2, 3 and 4 and in the corridors, 1, 2 and 3. It is composed of sand
mixed with ashes, several sherds and marine shells. Its thickness is 45 cm.
Layer 3: It was found in enclosure 3 and the corridors 1, 2 and 3. It is composed of boulders
mixed with dark gray fine sand, with some small cubic mud-bricks dispersed in the layer. There
was little archaeological material found. It was between 60 and 95 cm thick.
Layer 4 was found in the enclosures 3 and 4 and in the corridors 1, 2 and 3. It is composed of
botanical material, mixed with sherds and marine shells, and it was covered by a layer of mud 3
cm thick. It has between 5 and 8 cm thickness, reaching 12 cm thickness in Corridor 1.
Based on this information, it is possible to conclude that the enclosures and corridors were
closed with architectonic fills of various components during a time of architectural renovation of
this sector of the pyramid. Pottery artifacts from these fills are of particular importance since they
belong to the period between the final use of the enclosures and its abandonment and closure.
Four types of contexts seem to be discovered in the Southern Slope: Lima architectonic fills,
which have scattered sherds that could have come from different places, taken together with earth
727
and gravel, and garbage. Since there are fragments of vessels and panpipes that could be partially
joined, there is another context, the offerings of these specimens, intentionally broken and buried
at a time of architectonic reconstructions. A third context is composed of the offerings of pottery
vessels associated with Ychsma burials (burials 85 and 87), and the fourth context is the surface
layer with artifacts from several periods and styles (Lima, Wari and Ychsma) mixed together.
Types Styles Total
Lima Nieveria Wari Ychsma
Vessels 2 - - 4 6
Decorated 119 9 2 2 132

sherds
Rim sherds 75 - 3 19 97
Outlets 5 - - - 5
Bottom 2 - - 7 9
sherds
Strap sherds 6 - - 5 11
Pan pipes 6 - - - 6
Spoon 1 - - - 1
Total 216 9 5 37 267
Table B-28. Distribution of pottery styles specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu.
728
Wari
2% Ychsma
Nieveria 14%
3%
Lima
81%
Chart B-29. Relative frequency of pottery styles in the collection of Southern Slope of Huaca
Aramburu.
Straps Pan pipes Spoon Vessels

4% Bottom 2% 1% 2%
3%
Outlets
2%
Rim sherds Decorated

36% sherds
50%
Chart B-30. Relative frequency of pottery types in the collection of the Southern Slope of Huaca
Aramburu.
729
Types Lima 1 Lima 2 Lima 3 Lima 4 Lima 5 Total
Vessels - 2 - - - 2
Rim 25 79 - - 2 106
sherds
Decorated - 82 6 - - 88
sherds
Strap 6 - - - - 6
sherds
Bottom - 2 - - - 2
sherds
Outlets - 5 - - - 5
Spoon - 1 - - - 1
Pan pipes - 1 - 5 - 6
Total 31 172 6 5 2 216
Table B-29. Distribution of Lima specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu.
730
Lima 3 Lima 4 Lima 5
3% 2% 1%
Lima 1
14%
Lima 2
80%
Chart B-31. Relative frequency of Lima ware specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca
Aramburu.
outlets Bottom Spoon Panpipes

2% sherds 0% 3% Vessels
Strap 1% 1%
sherds
3%
Rim
sherds
Decorated
49%
sherds
41%
Chart B-32. Relative frequency of Lima specimens in the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu by
type.
731
Types Nieveria 1 Nieveria 2 Nieveria 3 Total
Decorated 7 1 9
sherds
Total 7 1 1 9
Table B-30. Distribution of Nieveria style specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca
Aramburu.
Nieveria 3
11%
Nieveria 2
11%
Nieveria 1
78%
Chart B-33. Relative frequency of Nieveria wares in the southern slope of Huaca Aramburu.
732
Types Wari 1 Wari 2 Wari 3 Wari 4 Total
Decorated 1 1 - - 2
sherds
Rim sherds 1 - 1 1 3
Total 2 1 1 1 5
Table B-31. Distribution of Nieveria style specimens in the Southern Slope in
Huaca Aramburu.
Types Ychsma 2 Ychsma 3 Ychsma 4 Ychsma 10 Total
Vessels 3 - - 1 4
Rim sherds 11 3 2 2 18
Strap sherds 2 - - 3 5
Bottom 3 - - 4 7
sherds
Decorated 2 - - - 2
sherds
Total 21 4 2 10 36
Table B-32. Distribution of Ychsma style specimens in the Southern Slope in
Huaca Aramburu.
733
Ychsma 10
27%
Ychsma 4 Ychsma 2
5% 57%
Ychsma 3
11%
Chart B-34. Relative frequency of Ychsma specimens by wares in the Southern slope of Huaca
Aramburu.
Decorate
d sherds
6%
Vessels
11%
Bottom
sherds
19%
Strap
sherds Rim
14% sherds
50%
Chart B-35. Relative frequency of Ychsma specimens by types in the Southern slope of Huaca
Aramburu.
734
Styles/Wares Types Layer 2 Total
Lima 1 8 1 1
1 1 1
Rim sherds 6 1 1
15 1 1
19 1 1
2 1 1
Lima 2 7 1 1
9a 1 1
Decorated sherds 9b 1 1
9c 1 1
15 1 1
23 1 1
Nieveria 1 Decorated sherd 5 1 1
Ychsma 2 Rim sherd 20 1 1
Total 14 14
Table B-33. Distribution of pottery specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca Aramburu by
layers Unit S303-317/W80-91.
735
Styles/wares Types Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Burial Burial Total
85 87
Jar 1 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 2 1 - 4 - - 1 5
2 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 1 4 - 1 - - - 1
5 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 2 Rim sherds 7 - 4 - - - 4
Lima 1 8 1 6 - - - 7
9 - 2 - - - 2
Lima 2 12 - 1 - - - 1
17 - 1 - - - 1
18 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 1 Strap sherds - 6 - - - 6
Lima 3 1 1 - - - - 1
Lima 2 2 1 10 - - 2 13
6 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 3 6 - 1 - - - 1
7 - 2 - - - 2
9 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 2 9ª - 5 - - - 5
9b - 1 - - - 1
9c - 3 - - - 3
10 - 6 - - - 6
13 1 1 - - - 2
Lima 3 14 1 - - - - 1
Decorated
16 - 1 - - - 1
sherds
17 - 4 - - - 4
18 - 3 - - - 3
Lima 2 19 - - - - 1 1
20 - 2 - - 1 3
22 - 1 - - - 1
23 - 2 - - - 2
24 - - - - 1 1
Lima 3 39 - - - - 1 1
42 - 1 - - - 1
Lima 2 Outlet - 2 - - - 2
Spoon - 1 - - - 1
Lima 4 Pan pipes - - 4 - - 4
Nieveria 1 Decorated 3 - 1 - - - 1
sherds 15 - 1 - - - 1
Table B-34. Distribution of pottery specimens in the Southern Slope in Huaca Aramburu
by layers Unit S303-317/W83-97.
736
Styles/wares Types Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Burial Burial Total
85 87
Wari 1 Rim sherds 6 - - - - 1 1
Wari 2 32 1 - - - - 1
Wari 4 23 1 - - - - 1
Ychsma 10 Pots 17 - 1 - - - 1
42 - - - 2 - 2
Ychsma 2 Jar 13 - - - 1 - 1
10 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 3 10 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 4 13 - - - - 1 1
Ychsma 2 16 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 3 16 1 - - - - 1
19 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 2 20 - - - - 2 2
Rim sherds 21 - - - - 1 1
29 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 3 29 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 10 32 - 2 - - - 2
Ychsma 3 35 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 4 37 - - - - 1 1
42 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 2 56 - 1 - - - 1
60 - 1 - - - 1
Strap sherds 3 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 10 6 - 3 - - - 3
Ychsma 2 1 - - - - 2 2
Ychsma 10 Bottom 2 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 2 sherds 3 - - - - 1 1
Ychsma 10 4 - 2 - - - 2
6 - 1 - - - 1
Ychsma 2 Decorated 5 - - - 1 - 1
sherds 6 - - - - 1 1
Total 8 100 4 4 17 133
by layers Unit S303-317/W83-97 (Continuation).
737
Styles/wares Types Layer 1 Layer 2 Total
Rim sherds 1 1 1
2 - 3 3
7 1 - 1
Lima 2 9a 1 - 1
Decorated 9b 1 - 1
sherds 9c 3 - 3
10 - 1 1
19 1 - 1
Lima 3 20 1 - 1
23 1 - 1
Lima 2 27 1 - 1
Outlet 1 - 1
Nieveria 1 3 1 - 1
Nieveria 2 3 1 - 1
Nieveria 1 Decorated 5 1 - 1
sherds 6 1 - 1
Nieveria 3 12 1 - 1
Nieveria 1 18 1 - 1
Wari 1 21 1 - 1
Wari 3 Rim sherd 24 1 - 1
Ychsma 2 Strap sherds 6 1 - 1
Total 21 4 25
by layers Unit S314-317/W97-99.
738
Styles/wares Types Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Total
Lima 2 Bowl 1 1
Lima 4 Pan pipes 1
1
Lima 2 1 3 11 1
2 1
3 1
Lima 1 5 5
Lima 2 Rim 6 3
sherds 7 1 7
Lima 1 9 7 1
Lima 2 11 1
Lima 5 11 1
12 1
2 3 2 3
3 1
6 1
7 1 2
9a 3 5
9c 2 2 1
Lima 2 Decorated 10 2 3
sherds 18 1
27 1 1 1
28 1 1
30 1
47 1
48 1
Outlet 1 1
Bottom 1 1 1
23 54 12 2 91
by layers - Unit S317-319/W83-97.
Styles/wares Types Layer 3 Total

Rim sherds 1 1 1
Lima 2 Decorated sherds 2 1 1
9a 2 2
Total 4 4
by layers – Trench.
739
B.10 LL-64 (Huaca 9):
This site was identified by Idilio Santillana, who registered it in a report sent to San Marcos University
in 1988 about the archaeological sites of the Campus that could be seen in the 1944 aerial photographs,
receiving the name of "Sector 9" or "Huaca 9" (Silva et al. 1993). The pyramid was demolished and the
area leveled, together with five other Lima pyramids, for the construction of the facilities of the University
during the 1950's.
In 1990 the site was rediscovered when some students of the Faculty of Biological Sciences
practiced cultivation in “organic-vegetable” gardens with holes that affected archaeological
structures under the surface. The intervention of the School of Archaeology allowed the
conservation of the site; it has been excavated since 1992 as part of the fieldwork training for the
students, discovering Lima small mud-brick walls and Lima-style pottery (Silva et al. 1993:78).
The archaeological artifacts recovered from these excavations were deposited in the cabinets of
the School of Archaeology.
Although the sherds are abundant, few were diagnostic, and these are also very small. In total
97 fragments were analyzed. Each bag had cards with the information of the contexts, which
includes unit, layer, and level. The information was not complete only in seven cases: six
specimens do not have information from the unit and one has no indication of the layer from
which it came from.
The analyzed sherds were discovered in the following units: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19 and 22, from up to 7 layers, although this is not the case for all units.
Three reports on these excavations from the years 1992 and 1996 were consulted for this
investigation with the contextual information of the units from 1 to 11 (Silva 1992, 1996). The
740
reports of other years and units are missing so far. Based on the information from these reports,
there are four phases of occupation at the site. The first is composed of small Lima mud-brick
walls in technique C without external plaster, forming corners, one from southwest to northeast
and another from southeast to northwest. The excavations did not reach the bases of the walls and
their total height is unknown. An excavation made outside the area of the site in 2009 indicated
that the natural soil is not far below this level. No artifacts were recovered from this occupation.
The second occupation corresponds to two parallel walls made of small mud bricks in
technique C oriented from southwest to northeast and associated with a floor of mud that defines,
apparently, a passage. The wall to the south sits directly on architectonic fill composed of layers
of compact soil and boulders with sand that covers the north and east sides of the walls of the first
phase. Inside this fill there are walls made with reused small mud bricks and boulders lined up
together with mud as mortar forming grates to hold the fill. This occupation belongs to layers 3 to
7.
The third occupation consists of an architectonic fill that covered the passage of the second
phase. This fill is composed of boulders, sand and loose soil. It contained abundant fragments of
Lima-style pottery and a lens of marine shells. This fill served as support for new structures of the
pyramidal building which were destroyed during its demolition in the 1950's. The artifacts
associated with this occupation were not found in the deposits of the School of Archaeology.
The last occupation is represented by two superficial layers (1 and 2 in all the units, including
3 in Unit 18, and 4C, the garden hole, in Unit 14), when this place was used for gardening. In
those layers the specimens were found mixed with modern waste.
741
Styles Types
Decorated sherds Rim sherd Handle Total
Ancon 1 - - 1
Lima 74 17 1 92
Nievería 3 - - 3
Wari 1 - - 1
Total 79 17 1 97
Table B-38. Distribution of pottery style specimens in Huaca 9.
Nievería Wari Ancón

3% 1% 1%
Lima
95%
Chart B-36. Relative frequency of diagnostic pottery specimens in Huaca 9 per styles.
742
Outlet
1%
Rim sherds
18%
Decorated
sherds
81%
Chart B-37. Relative frequency of pottery collection from Sector 9 by types.
Types
Styles Decorated sherds Rim sherds Handle Total
Lima 1 - 11 - 11
Lima 2 78 6 1 85
Total 78 17 1 92
Table B-39. Distribution of Lima style specimens in Huaca 9.
743
Lima 1
11%
Lima 2
89%
Chart B-38. Relative frequency of Lima specimens in Huaca 9 per wares.
Handle
1%
Rim sherds
18%
Decorated
sherds
81%
Chart B-39. Relative frequency of Lima specimens per type.
744
Types Styles/wares Layer Surface Unit 1 Total
AII Layer 2B
3 - 1 - 1
Decorated 5 - 2 - 2
sherd 7 Lima 2 - 1 - 1
9 2 - - 2
Rim sherd 8 Lima 1 - - 1 1
Total 2 4 1 7
Table B-40. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Sherds with incomplete information.
Types Styles/wares Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 6 Total

Decorated 6 1 - - 1
sherd 2 Lima 2 - 2 1 3
7 - - 1 1
Total 1 2 2 5
Table B-41. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 9. Unit 1.
Types Styles/wares Layer 1 Layer 2 Total

2 1 - 1
Decorated 7 Lima 2 - 3 3
sherd 3 - 1 1
Total 1 4 5
Types Styles/wares Garden Hole Total

Decorated sherd 2 5 5
9a Lima 2 1 1
Total 6 6
745
Types Styles/wares Layer 2 Garden Layer 5 Total
Hole
Decorated 7 1 - - 1
sherd Lima 2
Handle 1 - - 1
Rim sherd 8 Lima 1 - - 1 1
Total 1 1 1 3

Decorated 2 1 - 1
sherd 9 Lima 2 1 - 1
5 - 1 1
Total 2 1 3

4 1 - 1
Decorated 6 Lima 2 1 - 1
sherd 9 - 1 1
9b 1 1
Rim 8 Lima 1 - 1 1
Total 2 3 5
Types Styles/wares Layer 2 Total

Decorated sherd 9a Lima 2 1 1
Total 1 1
746
Types Layer 1 Layer 2 Total
3 1 1
Decorated 4 1 - 1
sherd 5 1 - 1
7 Lima 2 2 1 2
3 1 - 1
9a 1 1
Rim 1 - 1 1
8 Lima 1 - 2 2
Total 6 5 10
Types Style/wares Layer 1 Layer 2 Total

Decorated 2 - 1 1
sherd 14 Lima 2 1 - 1
9a 2 - 2
Total 3 1 4
Types Style/wares Layer 5 Total

Rim sherds 1 Lima 2 1 1
8 Lima 1 1 1
Total 2 2
Types Styles/wares Layer 4C Total

(Garden Hole )
Pot 1 Lima 1 1 1
Decorated - Ancon 4 1 1
sherd
Decorated - Nievería 3 1 1
sherd
Total 3 3
747
Types Style/wares Layer1 Locus 1 Layer 5 Total
2 1 - 1 2
Decorated 6 1 - 1
sherd 7 - - 1 1
9 Lima 2 1 - 1 2
9a 1 1 2
12 - - 1 1
Rim 10 - - 1 1
Total 4 1 5 10
Types Styles/ware Layer 2 Layer 4 Total

Rim Sherds 8 Lima 1 1 1 2
1 - 1 1
Decorated 2 Lima 2 - 2 2
sherd 6 - 1 1
9a - 1 1
Total 1 6 7
Types Styles/wares Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Total

2 1 2 1 4
6 Lima 2 - 1 1 2
Decorated 9 - - 1 1
sherd 10 - - 1 1
19 1 1
28 Wari 2 - - 1 1
Total 1 4 5 10
748
Types Styles/wares Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Total
Rim sherd 8 Lima 1 - - - 1 1
2 1 - 2 - 3
Decorated 9a Lima 2 - - 1 - 1
sherd 43 - 1 - - 1
18 Nieveria 1 - - 1 - 1
Total 1 1 4 1 7
Types Styles/wares Layer AII Total

8 Lima 1 1 1
Rim sherd 10 1 1
16 1 1
2 4 4
Decorated sherd 6 Lima 2 1 1
9a 1 1
9b 1 1
11 1 1
Total 11 11
Table B-56. Distribution of specimens in the Unit 22 of Huaca 9.
B.11 LL-75 (Huaca 21):
In 1962 the Metropolitan Deliberative Board collected ceramics from the surface of Huaca 21
and deposited them in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology from the University of San
Marcos where they were located and analyzed for this thesis. In total 52 diagnostic sherds from
the Lima and Ychsma styles were selected for their study.
749
Types Lima Ychsma Total
Rim sherds 4 13 17
Decorated sherds 33 1 34
Figurines - 2 2
Total 37 16 53
Table B-57. Distribution of specimens in Huaca 21.
Ychsma
30%
Lima
70%
Chart B-40. Relative frequency of pottery styles in Huaca 21.
750
Figurines
4%
Rim sherds
32%
Decorated
sherds
64%
Chart B-41. Relative frequency of pottery in Huaca 21 by types.
Types Lima 1 Lima 2 Lima 3 Lima 5 Total

1 - 1 - 1 2
Rim sherds 9 1 - - - 1
11 - 1 - - 1
2 - 7 - - 7
5 - 2 - - 2
6 - 3 - - 3
9a - 1 - - 1
9b - 1 - - 1
10 - 2 - - 2
Decorated 15 - 1 - - 1
sherds 16 - 9 - - 9
17 - 1 - - 1
31 - 1 - - 1
33 - - 1 - 1
40 - 1 - - 1
41 - 1 - - 1
42 - 2 - - 2
Total 1 34 1 1 37
Table B-58. Distribution of Lima specimens in Huaca 21.
751
Lima 3 Lima 5 Lima 1
3% 3% 2%
Lima 2
92%
Chart B-42. Relative frequency of Lima pottery in Huaca 21 by wares.
Rim sherds
11%
Decorated
sherds
89%
Chart B-43. Relative frequency of Lima pottery in Huaca 21 by types.
752
Types Ychsma 1 Ychsma 2 Ychsma 3 Ychsma 6 Ychsma 7 Total
10 - 1 - - - 1
11 1 1 - - - 2
Rim 20 - 5 - - - 5
sherds 36 - 1 - - - 1
38 - 1 - - - 1
43 - 1 - - 1 2
59 - 1 - - - 1
Decorated 23 - - - 1 - 1
sherd
Figurines 1 - 1 1 - - 2
Total 1 12 1 1 1 16
Table B-59. Distribution of Ychsma specimens in Huaca 21.
Ychsma 6 Ychsma Ychsma 1

6% 7 7%
Ychsma 3 6%
6%
Ychsma 2
75%
Chart B-44. Relative frequency of Ychsma pottery in Huaca 21 by wares.
753
Figurines
Decorated 13%
sherds
6%
Rim
sherds
81%
Chart B-45. Relative frequency of Ychsma pottery in Huaca 21 by types.
754
APPENDIX C
The Published Pottery from La Magdalena, Maranga and La Legua Channel Valleys
C.1 LM-52 (Huaca Huantille): Few of the artifacts discovered during the excavations of 2007
have been published. These include a jar of Ychsma Type 45 with the representation of a person
with a dish in the hands and white and black painted decoration of the type "Puerto Viejo"
(Guillén 2012: fig. 34), a jar Ychsma Type 56 (Guillén 2012: fig. 35) a jar Type 37 (Guillén 2012:
fig. 36), sherds with incised decoration and decoration of printed rings in body Type 10 (Guillén
2012: fig. 30), fragments of figurines with incised and punctate decoration (Guillén 2012: fig. 31),
and Chancay style fragments with a human face and straight lines or sinuous and checkered black
on white (Guillén 2012: fig. 33). The Ychsma style artifacts fit with the Middle and Late Ychsma
phases.
C.2 M-55 (Huaca La Luz I): The excavations carried out by the Seminar of Archaeology of the
Riva-Agüero Institute led to the discovery of Ychsma burials in the site. One of them, the
“Funerary Context 53” had two Late Ychsma "B" vessels from the Late Horizon Period
(Hernández 2011: fig. 6), a reduced jar with composite neck and the representation of a personage
kissing a bird in the beak (Hernández 2011: fig.13) and pot Type 82 (Hernández 2011: fig. 14). In
the same site were found three nude female figurines (O'phelean 1971:95; 103; Ramos 1971b
Lamina IV.). In another burial a jar with the representation of a personage carrying in the back
five small jars (Ramos de Cox 1970b) was found. Vallejo (2004) calls this type of vessel
"Provincial Inca" from the Late Horizon Period.
C.3 Huacas of the old Pando State: The Seminar of Archaeology of the Riva-Agüero Institute of
the Catholic University excavated several of the huacas situated in the old Pando estate in the
755
Maranga Channel Valley. An analysis of rim sherds determined the existence of 25 types. Some
are equivalents to: Rim Type 47 (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2-type 1), Rim Type 30
(Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2-Type 2), Rim Type 30 (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: 1974:
Lámina 2-Type 2), Rim Type 15 and Type 35 (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: 2-Tipo blade 3, type 7),
Rim Type 53 (Ramos de Cox 1974: Lámina 2 - type 13), Rim Type 38 (Ramos de Cox 1974:
Lámina 2 - type 14), Rim Type 25 (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2 - type 4), Rim Type 42
(Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2 - type 5), Rim Type 48 (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina
2 - type 18), Rim Type 30 (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Blade 2 - type 2). Rims of dishes or open
bowls Lima, Wari or Ychsma (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Blade 2 - type 9), Ancon neck-less pots
(Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2 - type 20), bottle necks apparently from the Early Horizon
Period (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Blade 2 - type 19), bottlenecks of various types some of which
seem to be Ychsma (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2-types 10, 11, 12, 22, 23), bottles
double-spout and bridge probably Topara style, although the authors consider them "chavinoid"
(Ramos de Cox 1974-1975:11, Lámina 2 - type 24) and necks of stirrup-pout bottles probably
Cupisnique or Chimu influence (Ramos de Cox 1974-1975: Lámina 2 - type 25).
C.4 M-68 (Huaca 64-A): It is a small mound located inside the Catholic University Campus
excavated during the 1990’s. The vessels discovered during that investigation came from three
events. The first had vessels included as offerings during the construction of the building, the
second event was related with human funerary contexts, after the abandonment and closing of the
building, and the third event was pottery offerings in the old building (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz
2010:14).
Offering 1, from the first event, is an incomplete jar with a neck (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz
2010: fig. 3) similar to the Ychsma Jar Type 30. From the second event, the funerary context 1
756
has a group of seven domestic vessels, with soot on the surface, and 1 fine Inca aryballos jar (Mac
Kay and Santa Cruz 2010:16-18). Vessel 1 is an Ychsma pot Type 21; vessel 2 is a Ychsma Jar
Type 34; vessel 3 is similar to the Ychsma pot Type 65; vessel 4 is called “dish” by Mac Kay and
Santa Cruz (2010:17, fig. 8) although it could be also a lid; vessel 5 is more or less similar to the
Ychsma Pot Type 48, vessel 6 is a Ychsma pot Type 82, and vessel 7 is the Inca aryballos. From
the third event, Offering 5 is an incomplete jar with the Ychsma rim type 18 (Mac Kay and Santa
Cruz 2010: fig. 18).
The diagnostic rims founded in the architectonic fills are similar to the Ychsma rim-types 18,
34 and 35 (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2010: fig. 10), types 25, 26, and 29 (Mac Kay and Santa
Cruz 2010: fig. 11), types 4, 29 and others similar to the Ychsma Pot Type 45 (Mac Kay and
Santa Cruz 2010: fig. 12), types 45 and 47 (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2010: fig. 13), and types 7,
26 and 30 (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2010: fig. 14).
C.5 M-77 (Huaca 18): A reduced female figurine, covered with sheets of pacay (Inga feulliei)
leaves, was found close to some deposits. It is 40 cm high by 25 cm wide with outstretched arms
(Belcore 1970; O’phelean 1971:98, 105; Ramos de Cox 1971b: Lámina V; Obando 1970).
C.6 M-82 (Huaca 20): Eight occupation phases were detected in this site. The first and second
phases correspond to simple structures of boulders. Lima open bowls with Interlocking Type 9a
decoration were founded in those phases and belong to the Lima style phases 5 and 6.
Phases 3 to 7 are associated with pottery of the Late Lima style (7, 8 and 9 of the Patterson
sequence phases) and Nieveria of which 3 and 6 correspond to the use of the site as a cemetery.
Among the discovered artifacts, there is a panpipe and a Nieveria bottle with incised decoration of
parallel lines forming angles (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2011: fig. 9) accompanying, as funerary
offerings, an extended crops (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2011: fig. 4, fig. 14).
757
The pottery analysis established the existence of two ware types: “type 1”, which is equivalent
to Lima Ware 2, with a spoon (“escudilla”) (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2011: fig. 5), ware Type 1A
equivalent to Nieveria 1, and ware type 2, equivalent to Lima Ware 1. From the Second phase of
use as a cemetery, a double-spout-and-bridge vessel representing a fruit (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz
2000: fig. 8, Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2011: fig. 8), a jar with interlocking body decoration (Mac
Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 9; Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2011: fig. 11), a jar with a
representation of a human face on the neck (MacKay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 10), a bottle with
a camelid shape body (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 11; Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2011: fig.
6), a pot with decoration of concentric circles and triangles in the neck (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz
2011: fig. 12), and a jar with decoration of concentric triangles in the body (Mac Kay and Santa
Cruz 2011: fig. 13) were found. There are also a fragment with decoration of concentric triangles
Lima Type 10 (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 12, 16, 17), the rim of a Lima jar or pot (Mac
Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 14), a figurine (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 15) and a
fragment of a Nieveria style bottle (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: figs. 13 and 18). A vessel of
the Chakipampa style with the representation of the "Chakipampa Monster" was found in stage 8.
Two varieties were recognized, one from Ayacucho (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 19-20)
and the other apparently of local production (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2000: fig. 20-21) which
were assigned to Epoch 1B of the Middle Horizon Period. It should be noted that Chakipampa
samples of this site, along with Chakipampa specimens from Huaca Aramburu, were analyzed by
fluorescence and x-ray diffraction, determining that they were locally produced (Lazo et al. 2010:
281; figs. 1 and 2).
Pierce (2008) analyzed ceramics from Area 3 of the huaca, where an occupational sequence of
seven superimposed layers was detected consisting of mud floors, small Lima mud bricks and
758
boulder walls that form small enclosures, interspersed with architectonic fills, human burials, a
sequence that is associated with Lima phases from 7 to 9 (Pierce 2008:52 - 72).
The artifacts from “Layer B” can be related with to the late Lima phases, from 7 to 9 (Pierce
2008: Láminas 1-11), although there are some specimens that actually belong to the Middle Lima
phases from 4 to 6. There is a fragment of a dish or open bowl with interlocking decoration on the
internal side (Pierce 2008: Lámina 3) and a rim sherd Type 6 with interlocking decoration Type
9a (Pierce 2008: Lámina 4), both from Lima phases 5 or 6. Layer 1 has, in general, Late Lima
pottery, with the exception of the following specimens: a rim sherd of a closed bowl decorated
with white dots over black background from Lima Phase 4 (Pierce 2008: Lámina 16), rim sherds
of open bowls with Interlocking decoration Type 9a from the Lima phases 5 or 6 (Pierce 2008:
Lámina 33),in Layer 4 a closed bowl decorated with white dots over black background from Lima
Phase 4 (Pierce 2008: Lámina 45), interlocking Type 9a decoration inside open bowls from the
phases 5 or 6 (Pierce 2008: Lámina 47), design Type 18 “tear” from phases Lima 5 or 6 (Pierce
2008: Lámina 51),design Type 18 “checkered” from Lima Phase 4 (Pierce 2008: Lámina 53),
from Layer 5 closed bowls with white dots over black background from Lima Phase 4 (Pierce
2008: Lámina 68),Interlocking designs inside dishes or open bowls from the phases (Pierce 2008:
Láminas 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75), design Type 28 “tear” from Lima (Pierce 2008: Lámina
69), Lima rim Type 6 with external decoration (Pierce 2008: blade 77 and 78 blade), Jar Type 1
(Pierce 2008: blade 80) from Lima phases 5 or 6. There are also designs Type 17 “Orange rings
on a black background” from Lima phases 4 to 6 (Pierce 2008: Lámina 84), design Type 18
"white checkered" from Lima phase 4 (Pierce 2008: Láminas 89 and 95).
The pottery from Layer 6 is more consistent with the Lima phases from 4 to 6, with the
exception of some sherds with of red stripes with black rims (Pierce 2008: Láminas 114, 115 and
759
118) that in the Patterson sequence are phases 8 and 9. However, this design could be older than
was originally considered, perhaps to the phases 5 or 6, taking into consideration the other
associated ceramic specimens, especially the open bowls with interlocking decoration in the
inside (Pierce 2008: Láminas 111, 112).
Based on this information, it is possible to conclude that the pottery in layers 1 to 4 belong to
Late Lima (Lima phases 7-9 in the Patterson sequence), mixed with some sherds removed from
Middle Lima layers, and the ceramics from layers 5 to 7 to Middle Lima (phases 4 to 6 in
Patterson sequence), against Pierce’s (2008:164) conclusion that the entire collection must be
placed between the phases 7 and 9.
C.7 M-95 (Huaca San Miguel or Huaca 37): In architectonic fills Lima style pottery was found,
including a sherd with Interlocking Type 9b designs and a reduced fragment of a rim that could
be part a Ychsma composite neck (Carrión and Espinoza 2007b: fig. 1). In layers 9 and 10 there
were fragments of Ychsma rims Types 17, 31, 32, and 43 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: fig. 4), rim
Type 47 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: figs. 9, 11, 13), fragments with applications and perforated
with several holes as a strainer (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: fig. 10), or with printed decoration,
that the authors considered to be from the Pativilca style (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: Photo 5),
although it could also be Ychsma, something that is difficult to define due to the very small sizes
of the fragments. There are also a jar with an elongated ovoid body, horizontal strap handles on
the shoulders and composite neck similar to Rim Type 35 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: fig. 12), a
small jar with short neck and horizontal strap handles in the shoulders Type 49 (Carrión and
Espinoza 2007: picture 7), a short-neck jar with horizontal strap handles on the shoulders (Carrión
and Espinoza 2007: Photo 10), Bowl Ychsma Type 1 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: Photo 11),
Ychsma rim Type 44 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: fig. 14) and rim sherds with Type 1 design
760
consisting of white strokes over the external surface. There are also Chancay style sherds with
black designs on white background (Carrión and Espinoza 2007: figs. 8 and Photo 2).
C.8 M-98 (Huaca Tres Palos): Excavations carried out in the pyramid in the 1960's discovered
an architectonic sequence and pottery artifacts that have not been analyzed so far. Mercedes
Cardenas indicated that in the top of the pyramid, in an Inca architectonic fill from the Late
Horizon, some vessels with representations of human faces were found that are pretty similar to
beakers Type 57 and Type 58 of Makatampu (Cárdenas 1965:142, Lámina X, 143; Buntinx 1970).
Lima sherds were found in the fills of the wells located on the Platform A (Cárdenas 1965: 148,
159-160, 170, 173). Although the drawings are not very good to establish accurately the
decorative types, there are decorated sherds with the interlocking Type 9a design. One of the
sherds of the same context is Inca with the representation of the "fern" from the Late Horizon
Period (Cárdenas 1965:160). There are also a fragment of a neck with the representation of a
human face and a fragment with a sculptured representation of birds, apparently Ychsma
(Cárdenas 1965:167). There is also an Ychsma pot Type 82 with the decoration Type 5 “serpent
in relief” on the body (Hernández 2011: fig. 12).
C.9 M-154 (Wall 55E): in the excavations carried out in this sector of the Maranga group, now to
the inside of the “Park of the Legends” Zoo, an Ychsma pot Type 42, a rims types 5, 15, 25, 29,
44, and 45 (Carrión and Espinoza 2007a: fig. 7) from the Ychsma middle and late phases were
found in the construction fill in Sector B of the wall.
C.10 M-165 (Huatinamarca): Excavation m in this site discovered architecture and human
burials with a great quantity of archaeological artifacts. The published analysis indicates the
existence of a wide range of forms associated with the Ychsma pottery style in the architectonic
fills. The percentage distribution is: pots 41%, unidentified closed vessels: 24%, large jars: 21%
761
jars: 7%, undetermined types: 4%, dishes: 1%, figurines: 1%, bowls, bottles, and other: 1%
(Villacorta 2010:47).
There are great sized jars, whose rims coincide with Ychsma rims 45, 46, 47, and 53, and
others that do not appear in the analyzed collections of the study area (Villacorta 2010: table 2).
Pots have rims similar to types 5, 18, 25, 35 and 42 and a Pot Type 18 (Villacorta 2010: table 39),
jars with rims: types 12, 14, 15, 18, 38, and a bowl similar to the Ychsma Bowl Type 1 (Villacorta
2010: fig. 3) and Rim Type 55 (Villacorta 2010: table 3). There is also a camelid figurine
(Villacorta 2010: fig.19).
The pottery associated with the burials belongs to the Late A and Late B Ychsma phases, from
the end of the Late intermediate and Late Horizon periods. There are a jar with decoration Type 5
“serpent in relief” (Villacorta 2010: picture 21), Jar Type 45 (Villacorta 2010: Picture 22), a jar
with two personages carrying a dead body and a representation of cotton buds (Villacorta 2010:
figs. 23 and 24), a stirrup-spout bottle Chimu-Inca style (Villacorta 2010: Photo 25), a cup
(Villacorta 2010: picture 26), figurines (Villacorta 2010: figs. 27 and 28), a bowl with incised
decoration (Villacorta 2010: picture 29), jars of different types (Villacorta 2010: 190-191), a jar
with an anthropomorphic representation (Villacorta 2010:192), Pot Type 17 (Villacorta
2010:194), Pot Type 82 (Villacorta 2010:195-196), Pot Type 86 (Villacorta 2010:197), Pot Type
65 (Villacorta 2010:198), Pot Type 108 (Villacorta 2010:201) and Pot Type 66 (Villacorta
2010:200).
C.11 M-166 (“Pacific Fair” Huaca): Ruth Shady analyzed the pottery artifacts recovered during
the rescue work made in 1961. Shady established the existence of three groups: monochromatic
fragments in black and red wares with incised decoration and punctuated zones (Shady 1983: fig.
4, fig. 5 i). This material seems to correspond to the Ancon style between the phases II to IV,
762
given the presence of incised decoration and the absence of designs as impressed circles with
points related to the Chavin-Janabarriu style. Fragments with red paint and incised decoration,
red and cream or orange, in one case with red post-fired paint. Shady argued that this pottery
could be associated with the Curayacu style of the South-Central Coast, prior to the Janabarriu
expansion (Shady 1982b:30).
The second group is an oxidized ware with red strips on a black background and white stripes
on a red background (Shady 1982b: fig. 5 a-c). Shady argued that they could belong to the “White
on Red” tradition of the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period (Shady 1982b:28), but they
are actually too small to determine its stylistic association with security. It could be also Ychsma.
The third group is composed of rim sherds collected from the surface (Shady 1982b: Lámina 6
h-I). There are two fragments of Ychsma rim Type 35. Unfortunately, I could not locate these
materials in the National Museum of Archaeology, for a new study, and their whereabouts is
currently unknown.
C.12 LL-12 to LL-15 (Makatampu): Francisco Bazán said that in Makatampu there are vessels
related to its "Initial Ichma, I" phase, among, of which there are some photographed in situ as
offerings to a funerary bundle with a false head made of wood (Bazán 2008: fig. 1). The vessels in
this picture match Ychsma pots types 38, 39, and 88. These vessels belong to the Early Ychsma
phase B in Vallejo’s sequence. Bazán argued that the burials of this phase in Makatampu are also
characterized by the presence of bundles placed in boxes made with reeds. However this is not
clearly demonstrated. As discussed above, in Huaca Concha and Huaca Aramburu there are
burials in boxes of reeds that are associated with Late Ychsma ceramics. Bazan considered that
vessels with the neck in the shape of a cup, also known as Cuculi, belong to the Initial Ychsma
(Bazán 2008:15). Thus, Ychsma jars types 20 and 29, would be at this stage (Bazán 2008: figs. 5
763
and 6). However, vessels of this type were found in Cajamarquilla along with vessels from the
Middle Ychsma A and B phases (Narváez 2006:164), and should be later than what Bazán argued.
C.13 LL-62 (Huaca Aramburu): Jijón found in his excavations of 1925, several archaeological
artifacts in funerary contexts and architectonic fills. Pottery specimens illustrated from burials in
his publication are:
Burial II: jar with a cucurbitaceous body shape and decoration Type 5 “serpent in relief” in the
body, a vertical strap handle from shoulders to neck and the representation of corn on one side
(Jijón 1949: fig. 69). Seems to be related to the phases Late Ychsma A or B. Burial XIII: a "white,
black and red Chancay" jar (Jijón 1949: fig. 70). The picture is not very clear, and the vessel could
be Three-color Geometric style.
Burial XV: Funerary bundle at 1.9 m below surface associated with an Ychsma mold-made
female figurine (Jijón 1949: fig. 72).
Burial XVI: Funerary bundle with a Chancay Style jar decorated with vertical and horizontal
black strips and black dots in the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 74; Lumbreras 2011:328 fig. A).
Burial XVII: A small pottery dish with impressed circles and stripes making angles (Jijón 1949:
fig. 76). Style undetermined.
Burial XXI: Funerary bundle at 0.9 m from the surface. It had as offerings consisting of a vessel
with a lucuma (Pouteria lucuma) body shape (Jijón 1949: fig. 76) and an Ychsma pot Type 72
(Jijón 1949: fig. 77; Lumbreras 2011: 307, fig. B) with a cucurbitaceous body shape. Middle
Ychsma A to Late Ychsma B.
Burials XXV and XXVI: Funerary bundles with a pot covered with white slip, black checkered
and with four red stripes (Jijón 1949: fig. 78; Lumbreras 2011: 310, fig. B). Middle Ychsma A.
764
Burials XL-XLI: Two funerary bundles with an Ychsma jar Type 25 with the representation of a
bird painted in white on the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 80, Lumbreras 2011:308). Probably Middle
Ychsma A or Middle Ychsma B.
Burial XLVI: Funerary bundle discovered at 1.8 m from the surface with an Ychsma pot Type 82
with the Ychsma design Type 5 “Serpent in relief” in the body. Late Ychsma A or B.
Burial LVII: Funerary bundle with six gourds and several vessels like a pot with the Ychsma
design Type 11” Impressed human faces” (Jijón 1949: fig. 83). Unfortunately, the published
picture is bad, making it impossible to evaluate more characteristics of this vessel.
Burial LVIII: Funerary bundle at 1.8 m from the surface. There were funerary offerings,
consisting of a pot, similar to the Ychsma pot Type 71, with an impressed decoration of lines and
dots and a horizontal white band painted in the joint between the neck and the body (Jijón 1949:
fig. 84), and a jar with high neck and two vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck (Jijón
1949: fig. 85). Middle or Late Ychsma phases.
Burial LXIII: Funerary bundle of an adult at 1.65 m below surface. It had as offerings a pot Type
103 with painted and mold impressed decoration (Jijón 1949: fig. 87). Middle to Late Ychsma.
Burial LXXIII-XXXI: A group of burials, apparently looted, with several offerings including an
Ychsma pot Type 32. Late Ychsma A or B.
Burial CVI to CIX: a group of burials, one of them consisting of a funerary bundle put inside a
box made of reeds. It was found in association with a reduced jar Ychsma Type 45, but with a
shape of the body that resembles the Inca aryballos, with a representation of a person with the
face in the neck of the vessel (Jijón 1949: fig. 49; Lumbreras 2011:61 fig. A, 312 fig. D) and a
reduced jar with the canteen-shaped body Type 50 (Jijón 1949: fig. 95; Lumbreras 2011:312 fig.
E). Late Ychsma B.
765
Burial CXVII: Funerary bundle discovered at 1.6 m below surface. Among the offerings, there
was an Ychsma Jar Type 28 with a sculpted animal in the neck that Jijón thought was a turtle
(Jijón 1949: fig. 96, Lumbreras 2011 314, fig. A).
Burial CXXXIII: Discovered at 0.85 m below surface, it is a funerary bundle of an adult with a
gourd, digger sticks, and two vessels, one of which is an Ychsma jar Type 29 with diagonal white
lines in the body as decoration (Jijón 1949: fig. 97; Lumbreras 2011:328 fig. A). Middle or Late
Ychsma phases.
Burial CLV: Discovered at 0.9 m below surface, it is a burial of a young man with a pot with
short neck and two heads in relief, probably Ychsma style (Jijón 1949: fig. 98).
Burial CLXVI and CLXVII: Two adults with two miniature pots with vertical strap handles en the
equator and convergent necks and vertical black strips in the bodies (Jijón 1949: figs. 99 y 100;
Lumbreras 2011:314 fig. B). Middle and Late Ychsma phases.
Burial CLXXVI: Discovered at 1.5 m below surface, it is a funerary bundle with an Ychsma jar
Type 1 (Jijón 1949: fig. 101; Lumbreras 2011:314, fig. C) probably Middle or Late Ychsma.
Burial CLXXX: Burial discovered at 0.7 m below surface with a pot with impressed decoration
and two vertical strap handles from shoulders to lip (Jijón 1949: fig. 102; Lumbreras 2011:314
fig. D). Late Ychsma A or B.
Kroeber reported pottery found at the same site during his 1925 excavations. There is a
fragment of a Lima-style neck with decoration Type 15 “stepped design” (Kroeber 1954: fig. 36,
figs. 42, 50 and 66), Type 2 “black stripes with white rims over natural or red background”
(Kroeber 1954: fig.38), Interlocking Type 9a (Kroeber 1954: fig. 40, fig. 54), Type 20 in a border
of "white rings on curved black bands with white rims " (Kroeber 1954: fig. 41 Fig. 44, fig. 49),
Type 6 "red strips with black or black and white rims " (Kroeber 1954: fig. 25 fig. 49), Type 31
766
"crescent-shaped figures in the rims" (Kroeber 1954: fig. 25), Type 20 "white rings on curved
black bands with white rims " (Kroeber 1954: fig. 47, fig. 53), rim with the decoration Type 32 "
Red stripes with black rims and white rings and dots in the interior" (Kroeber 1954: fig. 70) and a
rim of an open bowl with strap-handles on the edge similar to Lima rim Type 4 (Kroeber 1954:
fig. 69). These materials can be assigned to the Late Lima (Phases 7 to 9 in the Patterson
sequence).
G. Chauca analyzed pottery specimens from the Middle Horizon Epoch 2, related to the Wari
styles Pachacamac phases A and B, Ica-Pachacamac, Pachacamac, and Viñaque styles, deposited
in some small, sealed and abandoned rooms on sealed and abandoned the summit of Platform 2.
Most of those artifacts had polychrome geometric decoration painted in grey, black, white, brown
and red, although their incompleteness made it difficult to recognize the types of designs (Chauca
2009 fig. 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.11, 5.17, 5.19, 5.22, 5.26, 5.27, 5.34). Among the most complete sherds,
there is the “Pachacamac Griffin”, occasionally accompanied by design Type 28 "White areas
with black lines to the inside" (Chauca 2009: figs. 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15,
5.16, 5.18, 5.20, 5.21,5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.29, 5.30, 5.31, 5.32,), Type 9 "chevron" design dividing
panels, and Type 28 "white spheres with black lines in the interior" (Chauca 2009: fig.5.28), as
well as fragments of a bowl with black crosses on the external side and the black silhouette of a
camelid on the internal side (Chauca 2009: fig.5.33).
C.14 LL-75 (Huaca 21): The excavations carried out by Jijón (1949) in this site in 1925 (Huaca
III and IV in Jijón’s publication), led to the discovery of abundant ceramic fragments in the
architectonic fill and a Lima cemetery in the deepest part of the excavation, with complete vessels
as offerings. Unfortunately the record of Jijón was poor, and it is impossible to locate accurately
those burials in the proposed architectonic sequence (Lumbreras 2011:179).
767
Burial XC: a burial deposited in the architectonic fill of the third construction phase, had a jar of
narrow neck and elongated ellipsoid body with convex base. The neck is painted in black and
there is a ceramic ring painted in white around the union between the body and the neck (Jijón
1949: Figure 3; Lumbreras 2011:182). The vessel is Lima, probably ware Lima 2 Lima, but it is
not possible to establish the phase that to which it belongs.
Burial CVII: located at 2.20 m below surface, it was found in association with a bottle with
lenticular-body shape, a vertical strap handle from shoulder to neck, and an interlocking
decoration on the neck and a painted fantastic animal, that Jijón considers "Cajamarquilla" type,
which actually derives from the Chakipampa Wari style, (Jijón 1949: Figure 3; Lumbreras
2011:129 Fig. C, 185). It belongs to Epoch 2 of the Middle Horizon Period. There was also a
small dish.
Burial CLIX: located at 2.90 m below surface. Its offerings consisted of a dish with a black stripe
on the external surface of the rim with interlocking decoration painted in white with thin lines
(Jijón 1949: fig. 10; Lumbreras 2011:186 Fig. A) and a pot without handles with the external side
of the edge decorated with a black stripe with a white staggered Interlocking design on it. By the
type of decoration both vessels belong to the Lima style phases 6 or 7.
Burials CLXVII to CLXXI: They had an offering of an ovoid-shaped body bowl of convergent-
convex neck, without handles and as decoration an interlocking strip around the external side of
the rim (Jijón 1949: fig. 12; Lumbreras 2011: 129 Fig. A, 191) which corresponds to the Lima
style and an elongated-ovoid body pot with divergent neck. The picture is too poor to establish
more details of the specimen (Jijón 1949: fig. 13; Lumbreras 2011:186 Fig. A).
768
Burial CLXXXVI: It has among the offerings a double-spout-and-bridge bottle with lenticular-
angled body and a design in black and white on red background between the spouts (Jijón 1949:
fig. 20). It is probably from the Lima phases 4 to 6.
Burial CLXXXVI: It was an extended body that had as offerings a dog, a ragdoll, panpipes and
miniature vessels, one with a zoomorphic representation, and a pot of ovoid body, flat base and
divergent-straight neck. The interiors of the vessels had bundles wrapped in corn husks which
were probably “tamales” according to Jijón (1949:42) and a ceramic dish as a lid. It is difficult to
determine the style of this pottery. They could be Lima since the associated body was in an
extended position.
Burial XLII: It was the corpse of a teenager inside a funerary bundle. It had a polychrome vessel
with seven colors as an offering, which was named "Cañete Medio" by Jijón (1949:51-52 fig. 30)
or akin to Chincha or Chancay styles by Lumbreras (2011:318 fig. B, 319). The published
pictures of the vessel are bad, however it can be noted that the vessel has decoration in the upper
part of the body in the shape of a bird, separated from the undecorated lower part of the vessel by
a horizontal strip of black friezes on white background. Another vessel, from the same context, is
a jar with composite neck, and vertical strap handles from the shoulder to the neck and
polychrome decoration of angular stripes (Jijón 1949: fig. 31; Lumbreras 2011:320 Fig. B). Also,
a figurine with polychrome decoration was found in association with those vessels (Jijón 1949:
fig. 32; Lumbreras 2011:320 Fig. A). Those kinds of ceramics belong to the Three-color
Geometric style.
Burial LXXXVII: Burial with 3 vessels as grave goods and four gourds. The vessels include an
Ychsma pot Type 72 with printed decoration on the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 37;
Lumbreras2011:320 Fig. C). Middle to Late Ychsma.
769
Burials XCIV and XCIV: They had an Ychsma figurine, of indeterminate phase (Jijón 1949: fig.
38; Lumbreras 2011:320 Fig. C).
Burial CIV: It was found at a depth of 2.5 m from the surface. Among the associated vessels there
is an Ychsma pot Type 45 with white stripes and black rims forming angles on the inside of the
neck as painted decoration (Jijón 1949: fig. 39; Lumbreras 2011:321 Fig. A). Undetermined
phase.
Burial CXXVII: found at 2.20 m below surface. Among the associated offerings, there is an
Ychsma pot Type 38 with printed decoration of human faces Type 11 (Jijón 1949: fig. 41;
Lumbreras 2011:318 Fig. A). Middle or Late Ychsma.
Burial CCI: Funerary bundle with a “false head” located at 4 m below surface with a reduced pot
with wide composite neck, angled body and two vertical strap handles on the shoulders, pretty
similar to the Ychsma pot Type 102 (Jijón 1949: fig. 47; Lumbreras 2011:322 Fig. A) and a
reduced bird-shaped vessel with composite neck (Jijón 1949: fig. 48; Lumbreras 2011:186 Fig.
B). Middle to Late Ychsma style.
Removed burial: close to this burial a jar was found with long composite neck with a human face
and decorated with vertical black stripes on a white background that was considered "Chancay"
(Jijón 1949: fig. 52; Lumbreras 2011:324 Fig. A).
Burial LX: located at 1 m deep below surface, contained a pitcher with a human face on the neck
with decoration of strips of red triangles with white rims on the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 53;
Lumbreras 2011:324 Fig. B). Jijón (1949:80) considered it of "Inca influence". It seems Late
Ychsma style.
Burial XCII: It was discovered at 0.5 m below surface, and was a partially looted burial with an
Ychsma Jar type 28 decorated with crossed white lines on the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 54;
770
Lumbreras 2011: 324, fig. A) and a pot Type 56 decorated with horizontal and vertical stripes on
the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 55; Lumbreras 2011:325 fig. A). Ychsma phases Middle A or Middle B.
Burial XCVII: discovered at 1.10 m below surface, it was a funerary bundle with a Chancay
vessel with composite neck and two vertical strap handles from the shoulders to the neck. It has,
in the middle part of the body, the representation of a monkey painted and sculpted (Jijón 1949:
fig. 56; Lumbreras 2011:325 fig. B). It could be from the middle Late Intermediate Period to the
Late Horizon Period
Burials CXXIII a CXXV: Three funerary bundles with twelve vessels as offerings. One of them is
a double-body whistle vessel Chancay style, with the sculpted representation of a standing person
with a turban on the head (Jijón 1949: fig. 58; Lumbreras 2011:296, 325 fig.C).
Burials CXXVII a CXXIX: Found at 1.5 m below surface, it consists of three funerary bundles,
two infants and one adult, with three vessels, one double-body whistle bottle, one reduced whistle
beaker with the representation of a person on a reed boat Chimu style (Jijón 1949:85) and a jar
with lenticular angled body with vertical-convex neck and two strap handles on the shoulders. It
has sculpted representations of maize corns attached to the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 59; Lumbreras
2011:326 fig. A). Late Ychsma A or B style.
Burial XLC: Found at 1.5 m below the surface, it is a funerary bundle with seven vessels as
offerings. One of them is a Chancay style jar with composite neck and two vertical strap handles
from shoulders to neck (Jijón 1949: fig. 60; Lumbreras 2011:3246 fig. B).
Burial CXLV: Found at 2 m below surface, it was a funerary bundle with seven vessels as
offerings. Among them, there was a jar with “Black-red yellow over red” decoration (Jijón y
Caamaño Fig. 61) with two vertical rounded handles from shoulders to neck and ellipsoidal body
771
(Jijón 1949: fig. 61; Lumbreras 2011:327 fig. A) and an Ychsma jar Type 31 with the
cucurbitaceous body-shape. Middle or Late Ychsma style.
Burial CXLIV: at 1.8 m below surface. It has an Ychsma figurine (Jijón 1949: fig. 63a;
Lumbreras 2011:327 fig. B).
Burial CLVII: Discovered at 2 m below surface, it was a funerary bundle with a Chancay jar with
composite neck and two vertical strap handles from shoulders to the rim and painted checkered
triangles as decoration in the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 64; Lumbreras 2011:327 fig. C). Middle
Ychsma A phase (Vallejo 2009: fig. 10). There was also an ellipsoid-body shape pot with wide
neck and impressed decoration in the lower part (Jijón 1949: fig. 66; Lumbreras 2011:328 fig. A).
This design is identical to the vessel from Makatampu MT 5891.
In the fourth Huaca of Jijón found the following burials:
Burial X: At 0.6 m below surface, it was a burial of a child in a reed cradle. It has an Ychsma pot
Type 72 (Jijón 1949: fig. 105).
Burial XIII: At 0.9 m below surface, it has an Ychsma jar type 28 with impressed decoration Type
28 “goose skin” in the lower middle part of the body (Jijón 1949: fig. 106; Lumbreras 2011:328
fig. B). Middle and Late Ychsma.
A great number of sherds of the Lima, Neveria, Wari, Ychsma and Chancay styles was found
in the architectonic fills and the superficial layers. Jijón (1949) classified this material taking into
account the decorative types, dividing the sherds into the following families:
Family White over Black (Jijón 1949 Láminas I-V; Lumbreras 2011: 215): Based on the
descriptions, the ware of this family is ware Lima 2.The specimens associated with this family
belong to the middle phases of the Lima style. Among the decorative designs are: Type 21 “White
rings over natural or black backgrounds” from the phases Lima 4 to 9 and white on black
772
background from the phase Lima 6. Patterson argued that the specimens of this family belong to
the phase Lima 6, particularly those that came from the layer n in the excavations of Jijón, a layer
of garbage that covered the most ancient structures in Huaca 21. Specimens of this family were
discovered in all the layers in the site, but are more common in the deepest layers (Patterson
1966:25).
Family Two or Three colors over black (Jijón 1949: Láminas VI-VIII; Lumbreras 2011: 216-218):
Seems to be ware Lima 2. Sherds of this family are similar to the decorative types 17 and 36
(Jijón 1949 Lámina VI: fig. 4, Lámina VII figs. 1, 2, 4 y 5). Jijón said that this family appeared in
the second construction phase detected in his excavations (Jijón 1949). Patterson indicated that
those specimens emerged not before the phase Lima 6 (Patterson 1966:125).
Family Black on Red: (Jijón 1949: Láminas IX-XI; Lumbreras 2011: 218-220): This pottery
seems to be Lima 2 and Lima 3. Some of the designs are similar to the types 5 “black line over
red background”, 7 “parallel black lines over red or natural background”, and 23 “curved black
lines”. Patterson said that some of those specimens belong to phases Lima 4 to 8 (Patterson
2966:126).
Family White and Black over Red (Jijón 1949: Láminas XII-XIII; Lumbreras 2011:220-221):
equivalent to the ware Lima 2. There are similarities between the specimens of this style and the
decorative types 28 “tear” (Jijón 1949: Lámina XII fig. 5), 9a “interlocking triangular heads”
(Jijón 1949: Lámina XVI: fig. 2; Lámina XVIII: fig. 1), and Type 9 c “interlocking open mouths”
(Jijón 1949: Lámina XVII: fig. 2).
Family “negative with three colors or negative on white paint” (Jijón 1949: Láminas XXIV-
XXXI; Lumbreras 2011:222-224): Seems to be ware Lima 2, decorated with a technique that
combines painting with negative decoration. There are no artifacts of this type in the specimens
773
analyzed in this investigation. Some of the designs published by Jijón resembles Lima
interlocking designs types 9a and 9c (Jijón 1949: Lámina XXX, fig. 2, Lámina XXXI, fig. 1, 3),
type 10 “concentric triangles” (Jijón 1949: Láminas XXXIII, fig. 5) and type 16 “fish” (Jijón
1949: Láminas XXXII, fig. 5).
Family white, black, red and orange (Jijón 1949: Láminas XXXIV-XXXVII; Lumbreras
2011:224-226): apparently, similar to ware Lima 2. The majority of these sherds belong to the
phases Lima 7, 8 and 9. There are some specimens with the design Interlocking Type 9b and Type
32 “Red stripes with black rims and white rings and dots in the interior”.
Family white, black, red and orange: equivalent to ware Lima 2. The majority of the sherds of this
family belong to the phases Lima 7, 8, and 9. There are sherds with the design Type 32 “Red
stripes with black rims and white rings and dots in the interior” (Jijón1949, fig. 1) and
interlocking Type 9b (Jijón 1949: Lámina XXXIV, fig. 2).
Family Cajamarquilla-Nieveria (Jijón y Caamaño: Lámina XXXVIII-XLIII; Lumbreras
2010:226-228): it is equivalent the Ware Nieveria 1 from the Middle Horizon Period.
Family "Buchero” (Jijón 1949:230-235; Lumbreras 2010:228-229): is a reduced pottery that was
discovered in small amounts in the huacas of Maranga. Could be equivalent to the ware Lima 5.
Family Negative with two colors (Jijón 1949: Láminas XLIV-XLV, Lumbreras 2011:229):
equivalent to ware Lima 2, although specimens of this type were not found in the analyzed
collections. Some decorative specimens of this type are equivalent to the Interlocking Type 9b
(Jijón 1949: Lámina XLIV fig. 1) and Type 15 “stepped design”.
Family Cream and black on red (Jijón Lámina XLVI-XLVIII; Lumbreras 2011:230): Seems to be
similar to ware Lima 2. Among the designs published by Jijón are: interlocking Type 9a (Jijón
1949 Lámina XLVI fig. 7), Type 9b (Jijón 1949 Lámina XLVI fig. 7) and Type 9 c (Jijón 1949:
774
Lámina XLVI fig, 8). There are some sherds with the decorative Type 16 (Jijón 1949 Lámina
XLVII fig. 1) that resemble the specimen H21-33 with the Lima fish design in the Huaca 21
collection.
Family White over Red (Jijón 1949: Lámina XLIX; Lumbreras 2010:231): It was not found in the
analyzed collections during this investigation. It is equivalent to the ware Lima 2 with the designs
Interlocking Type 9c (Jijón 1949 Lámina XLIX fig. 1) and type 25 “concentric diamonds” (Jijón
1949: Lámina XLIX fig. 2).
Exotic pottery (Jijón 1949: Lámina LI): It is mostly composed of Wari pottery. Lumbreras
considered the presence of the Ayacuchan styles: “Huarpa Terminal” (Cruz Pata), in the layer n,
Chakipampa, Viñaque or Pachacámac, Huamanga and Pongora from the Middle Horizon epochs
1A to 2A, including a specimen “Huari Derived” or “Epigonal” antecedent to the Three-color
Geometric style. This means that all the Middle Horizon Period is present in the Huaca 21
(Lumbreras 2011:233-235).
Alfred Kroeber found Lima burials in this edification with a variety of offerings included some
complete vessels. Burial P-L 101 has a plain pot with concave base and divergent-straight sides
(Kroeber 1954: fig. 22), Burial 105a has a globular pot with divergent-straight sides, white
decoration on black background in the neck, and vertical black bands with white rims (Kroeber
1954: fig. 23), Burial 103A has an ellipsoid pot with vertical-straight neck with white lineal
designs on black background in the neck (Kroeber 1954: fig. 24), Body 110 a closed bowl with
interlocking Type B decoration on the exterior of the convergent-convex rim (Kroeber 1954: fig.
26), and Body 111 a plain pot with divergent-straight neck and a plain bowl (Kroeber 1954: figs.
26 and 27). All those specimens were assigned by Patterson (1966:127) to Lima Phase 7. Body
109A has a jar with a human representation assigned to the Niveria style (Patterson 1966:127) and
775
from a loted burial, a jug with a black horizontal line in the rim and a panel with interlocking
Type A decoration, and an incomplete vessel with angled body and a panel with interlocking
decoration (Kroeber 1954: fig. 29). Those vessels were assigned by Patteron (1966:127) to the
Lima style Phase 9.
C.15 Callao: Pedro Villar Cordova published drawings of 7 vessels with the legend: "Ceramic
from Callao" (Villar 1938:440-441). He did not give any other additional information about the
provenance of these specimens. Although they are not technical drawings, it is possible to see one
Inca style and six other vessels in apparently Chimu style from the North Coast. They should not
be taken seriously as archeological vessels from Callao.
776
Appendix D
Comparative Pottery Analysis
D.1 Ancon Pottery Style:
The ware “Ancon 1” is similar to the wares "Brown smoothing grooved" and "Brown opaque
polished" from the Bay of Ancon in the Rosas’ sequence. The first ware is in the ten Ancon
phases of Rosas’ sequence, while the second appeared in phase Ancon V and lasts until phase
Ancon X. The similarities are in color, smoothed surface and the presence of small rock particles
as temperate. However, Ancon style pottery from Ancon Bay also presented spicules as temperate
that are absent in the Ancon “Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa” pottery collection. Also, the degree of
hardness on the Mohs scale is between 4 and 5 in the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970:50-51, 139, 248)
while in the ware Ancon 1 specimens are between 2 and 3.
Some ware Ancon 2 specimens are covered with red slip that have similarities with the ware
"red slip" that appeared in the Ancon VII phase and lasts until the Ancon X Phase in the Rosas’
sequence from the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970:175, 199). The ware "Polished black" of the Bay of
Ancon is similar to the ware Ancon 5. It appeared in the Ancon IV phase and extends to the
Ancon X phase in the Rosas’ sequence from the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970:143, 198-199).
Open bowls with rims types 1 and 2 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa were called "dishes" by
Rosas and are very similar to those for phases Ancon VI and VII from the Bay of Ancon (Rosas
1970: Lamina VII, figs. a4, b9 and c6, and 1-11). Rims types 3 and 4, from neck-less pots, are in
Ancon I to X phases from the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970: 136, Lámina 1, figs. 1-3, Lámina II,
figs. 1, 6 and b). Another form in the Bay of Ancon is a neck-less open vessel named "canchero",
a recipient for maize cocking (Rosas 1970:142, Lámina V 10-13) which has some similarities to
777
the rim Type 5 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, although in the Bay of Ancon those specimens
have more vertical sides (roses 1970:206 Lamina V, figs. 11-12). These vessels appeared in the
Ancon IV phase and last until Ancon X phase (Rosas 1970:141).
Incised decoration appeared in Ancon II phase and extends up to Ancon X phase. The design
Type 5 "Triangle with dots in the interior" of Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa is found in phases Ancon
VI and VII (Rosas 1970 Lámina X fig. c, Lámina XI b8, Lámina XI e12). However, the design
"rings with point inside" which appeared in the Ancon Phase VI and reached great popularity in
phases VIII to X (Rosas 1970 233; Blade fig. X, 6) is absent in the area of investigation, so the
collection of Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa should be earlier than Ancon phase VIII. This kind of
decoration is characteristic of the Janabarriu style from Chavin in the northern highlands (Burger
1992: fig. 169) and expanded to several areas in Peru during the Early Horizon Period.
In Ancon V phase in the Rosas’ sequence from the Bay of Ancon a type of decoration
appeared consisting of the application of post-fired paint in yellow, white and mostly red-ocher, in
the incisions (Rosas 1970:164). In phase Ancon VI in the Rosas’ sequence from the Bay of Ancon
this kind of decoration is absent, and in phase VII of this sequence it is limited to spindle whorls.
During phase VIII, this technique is on spindle whorls, cups, and beakers (Rosas 1970: table 13).
There are no sherds decorated with incision and paint in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, but there are
some specimens of this type in Huaca Pacific Fair (Shady 1982b: fig. 5g). This site also has
incised decoration between fields of different colors like light red with dark red, or cream with red
(Shady 1982b:29). This decorative technique is absent in the Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, but is
common in Ancon phases VII, VIII and IX in the Bay of Ancon (Rosas 1970: 175,188, 200).
Therefore, the collection from Huaca Pacific Fair can be associated with Ancon phases VII and
778
VIII. However is notable the absence of decoration of printed circles with or without inner point,
characteristic of the Janabarriu style from Chavin, is notable.
In the Chillon River Valley, Hugo Ludeña made a surface collection of pottery in “Huaca San
Humberto” (also known as Huacoy) a monumental U-shaped building from the Initial and Early
Horizon periods. This pottery was classified in two groups: "simple" and "fine". "Simple" pottery
is red, thick and belongs to pots with thickened rims and one open vessel (Ludeña 1970). They
have red slip on the exterior, something that resembles certain specimens of the ware Ancon 2
from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. Fine ceramics in “Huaca San Humberto” are dishes, bowls,
bottles, and possibly jars. Their surfaces are polished and decorated with incisions, and was
divided in the following types: “grey polished”, “fine” and “thin black” (Ludeña 1970:42). The
“Fine Black” and “Grey Polished” from “Huaca San Humberto” seems equivalent to ware Ancon
5 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, while the type “Fine” from Huaca San Humberto is equivalent
to the ware Ancon 4 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. In the collection from “San Humberto” there
are neck-less pot rims similar to the Ancon rims Type 3 and Type 4 (Ludeña 1970: Lámina I figs.
7-10, 12, 13-16). There is also incised decoration like in Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and Huaca 9 as
in Huaca San Humberto.
Jorge Silva reported pottery from the Initial and Early Horizon periods in several sites of the
Chillón River Valley. One of them has rims of neck-less pots similar to the rims Type 3 (Silva
1996: fig. 20b), Type 4 (Silva 1996: fig. 20f), and Type 6 (Silva 1996: fig. 20 h) from Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa. There are also sherds with the Janabarriu stamped circles designs with and
without dots in the interior (Silva 1996: fig. 20s, 20w), so the collection must be contemporary
with the Ancon VII phase of Rosas’ sequence from the Bay of Ancon onwards and therefore
slightly later than the ceramics from Huaca Huerto of Santa Rosa.
779
In the U-shaped temple of Garagay, situated in the north side of the Rimac River, at 6.5 km
from the area of investigation, the excavations carried out during the 1970’s discovered a great
amount of pottery sherds in the last construction phases of the edifice (Ravines et al. 1982:136).
Among the pottery types in the site, there is a “bichrome” ceramic, characterized by geometric
designs with contrasting colors like red and yellow, white and black, and painted incisions
(Ravines et al. 1982:145; Lámina 4 e-j; Lámina 5) and another type called “Polished Gray” that
also has fine incisions and excision, sometimes with red paint in the inside for a greater contrast.
Pottery from both types resembles some specimens from Huaca Pacific Fair (Shady 1982b:29).
There is also in Garagay a “polished brown” type decorated with incisions (Ravines et al. 1982:
Lámina 6b) similar to some specimens from Huaca 9, Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, and Huaca
Pacific Fair, and a “Burnished Black” type found on pots, open and closed bowls, dishes, and
beakers with incised decoration like stamped circles with dots in the inside in Garagay (Ravines et
al. 1982:147, Lámina 8), decoration that are pretty common in the Janabarriu tradition from
Chavin and in the Ancon phases V to X from the Ancon Bay, but absent in the collections from
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and Huaca 9. But, in this “Burnished Black” type from Garagay, there
is a sherd with the same design decoration Type 3 and Ancon rim Type 1 from Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa (Ravines et al. 1982: Lámina 6a-h 10-r). In the ware “Bichrome” from Garagay there
are some open bowls (Ravines et al. 1982: fig. 5c) that resemble the Ancon rim Type 5 from
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, a neck-less pot (Ravines et al. 1982: fig. 8g), similar to Ancon rim
Type 6 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and some dishes in ware “polished grey” from Garagay
(Ravines 1982: fig. 10k) with rims similar to the type Ancon rim Type 2 from Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa.
780
The few specimens of published pottery from Huaca La Florida, another U-shaped pyramid
located on the north side of the Rimac River, 7 km NE from the area of investigation (Patterson
1985; Fuentes 2009b:215) consist of very small monochrome sherds with incised decoration, and
rims of neck-less pots (Patterson 1985: fig. 5a, fig. 5c) similar to Ancon rims Type 3 and Type 5
from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. There are also a dish and a bottle with incised decoration
(Patterson 1985: figs. 5b and 5 d) that do not have equivalents in the Ancon pottery style
collection of Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. In Huaca La Florida there is also neck-less pots (Fuentes
2009:334-335) similar to rim Type 3 and Type 4 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
In Jicamarca Ravine, in the north side of the Middle Rimac River Valley, Jonathan Palacios
defined a sequence of four phases of domestic occupations around Huaca San Antonio, a U-
shaped building from the Initial and Early Horizon periods, and “Ventana” Hill. The defined
phases were: Jicamarca, Ventana, Cerro, Pinazo and Huayco (Palacios 1988) ranging from the
Initial Period up to the first two epochs of the Early Intermediate Period. Jicamarca phase is
divided into Early, Middle and Late Jicamarca. Early Jicamarca has vessels with thickened rims in
a brown ware (Palacios 1988: fig. 7a) that resembles the Ancon rim Type 5 from Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa, and neck-less pots (Palacios 1988: fig. 8 a-b) with rims similar to Ancon rim Type 3
from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. The Middle Jicamarca phase also has neck-less pots with
thickened rims (Palacios 1988: fig. 9) equivalent to the Ancon rims Type 3 from Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa, as well as in Late Jicamarca phase (Palacios 1988: fig. 10 b, c and d) and a rim
(Palacios 1988: fig. 10 a) similar to rim Ancon Type 4 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. In Late
Jicamarca an oxidized paste covered by a slip darker than the paste was used for making neck-less
pots (Palacios 1988:15). This is similar to the neck-less pots in ware Ancon 2 covered with red
slip from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. During the Early Horizon Period, the “Ventana” phase of
781
Jicamarca Ravine has stirrup spout bottles (Palacios 1988 figs. 2 and 18) similar to the Cupisnique
style from the North Coast that are absent in the Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa collection.
In the same Jicamarca Ravine and from the same periods, Jorge Silva and García (1997)
defined a sequence called Huachipa-Jicamarca with 4 phases known as B, C, D-1 and D-2. Phase
B is the oldest and it seems contemporary with the Ancon style, although it is not subdivided into
sub-phases. In this phase there is a “ware 1”, which seems to be similar to the ware Ancon 2 from
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and “ware 2”, similar to the ware Ancon 3 from Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa. The “ware 3” from Huachipa does not seem to correlate with the Ancon style wares from
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and Huaca 9. In the collections from Huachipa there are neck-less pots,
which are equivalent to the Ancon rim Type 3 (Silva and Garcia 1997: fig. 7b), and Type 6 (Silva
and García 1997: fig. 7a) from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. There is also incised decoration forming
straight lines (Silva and García 1997: fig. 9e) and incised and punctate decoration (Silva and
García 1997: figs. 9F and 9 g). This phase seems to be coeval with the Jicamarca phase in
Palacios’ sequence (Silva and García 1997: fig. 6). Incisions and post-fired red paint were found
in Huachipa Jicamarca C phase (Silva and García 1997: fig. 13e) and Huachipa Jicamarca
D1phase (Silva and García 1997: Fig. 26 b-c and Fig. 27 d) that have similarities with the types of
decoration in some specimens from Huaca Pacific Fair (Shady 1982b:30).
In Canto Grande Ravine, 8 km northwest from the area of investigation on the north side of the
Rimac River Valley, Julio Abanto reported sherds from different sites that have similarities with
the Ancon style specimens from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and Huaca 9. In the site “Corrales El
Sauce” a fragment equal to the Ancon rim Type 1 from the area of investigation was found
(Abanto 2009: fig. 15). From “Cerro Cantería” there are pieces with incised decoration (Abanto
2009: fig. 11, fig. 12), and from the upper part of the ravine, sherds with incised and punctate
782
decoration (Abanto 2009: fig. 11, fig. 13) similar to the Ancon decorative Type 4. Neck-less pots
with thickened rims similar to the Ancon rim Type 6 from the area of investigation come from
“Lomas de Mangomarca” (Abanto 2009: fig. 15b) and “Cerro Gramal” sites (Abanto 2009: fig. 17
d). Although there is not a sequence for these collections, based on the types of decoration in the
published specimens, many of the sherds seem to be later than Ancon phase V, and would be
slightly later than the collection of Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa.
Another collection of the Valley of the Rímac River also useful for comparative analysis is
from Huaca Vasquez, currently disappeared, that was located in the Surco Channel Valley, 9 km
southeast from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. The site was excavated before its total demolition by
Rosa Mendoza (1974).
Huaca Vasquez was a small mound 3.20 m high (Mendoza 1974:62). Excavations revealed
occupations from the Early Horizon Period, the Early Intermediate Period, and the Late
Intermediate and Late Horizon periods. The research focused on the oldest period where a rural
village was discovered with a sequence of rooms with mud floors and walls made of boulders
(Mendoza 1974:4).
The decorative attributes “stamped circles”, “finger stamp” and “projected appendix” detected
in Huaca Vásquez (Mendoza 1974:80) are absent in the collections from the area of investigation,
but are pretty common in phases VIII to X in the Ancon sequence. The type “punctate in zones”
has several specimens in Huaca Vásquez, but, there is only one sherd (Mendoza 1974 Lámina
XXIIIa) from this type that has similarities with the decorative Type 5 from Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa. The type “Incised” from Huaca Vásquez, on the contrary, has many similarities with Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa collections, although designs of this type lasted from Ancon phase II and until
Ancon phase X. There is a “thick paste” ware in Huaca Vázquez (Mendoza 1974:85-86) that
783
seems to be equivalent to the ware Ancon 3 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. There is also a “fine
paste” (Mendoza 1974:88-89) that resembles ware Ancon 5 from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. The
concentric semi-circles from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, in a rim Type 1 of an open bowl, are
similar to the design in one rim discovered in Huaca Vásquez (Mendoza 1974: Lámina XXVb).
Neck-less pots are in Huaca Vásquez, with the Ancon rim types 3 and 4 from Huaca Huerto
Santa Rosa (Mendoza 1974 Lámina II, Lámina V-VIII) along with Ancon rims types 1 and 2 of
open bowls from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa (Mendoza 1974 Láminas III-VIII).
The great amount of sherds with impressed circles with or without a dot, and the wide variety
of designs punctated in zones argue that the collection from Huaca Vasquez belongs to phases
VIII and X from the Ancon sequence, later than the Ancon collection from Huaca Huerto Santa
Rosa.
In the site “Tablada de Lurín”, located between the valleys or the rivers Rimac and Lurin, there
is an occupation from the Initial and Early Horizon periods, characterized by the existence of
domestic contexts that have been considered temporal camps for the exploitation of “lomas”
resources (Jiménez 2009).
The analysis of the associated pottery defined nine wares in Tablada de Lurin named from A to
I (Jiménez 2009:300); however, because those were poorly described, it is difficult to correlate
them with the wares from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and Huaca 9. There are five occupation
phases in the site. The first two belong to the Initial and Early Horizon Period and the ceramics
from these phases belong to wares H to I (Jiménez 2009:308).
In the collection there are neck-less pots with rims of Ancon Type 3 (Jiménez 2009: Lámina 1
forma 5c y 6a; Lámina 2 formas 10b, 13, 14a), Type 4 (Jiménez 2009: Lámina 1 forma 5b;
Lámina 2 forma 6c), and open bowls with rims Type 1(Jiménez 2009: Lámina 3 forma 7) from
784
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa, some with internal incised decoration (Jiménez 2009: Lámina 7 forma
2).
D.2 Topara Pottery Style:
Phase Cerro from Huachipa-Jicamarca sequence in Jicamarca Ravine could be from the end of
the Early Horizon Period, but it is different from the Ancon style. It was divided into three sub-
phases: Early, Middle, and Late. In Early Cerro there are double-spout-and-bridge bottles that
become pretty common in Middle Cerro (Palacios 1988: fig. 22), although they are different from
those from Huaca La Palma. In Late Cerro phase this kind of bottle is uncommon (Palacios
1988:16). Many of the vessel shapes and incised decorative types in Cerro are absent in the Ancon
pottery from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa and from the collection of bottles from Huaca La Palma.
The next phase in Palacios’ sequence is Pinazo. As in the preceding phases, the Pinazo
occupations are domestic, although there is a small pyramidal mount located on the foothills of
“Ventana” hill, with walls made of rocks and mud and externally plastered with clay (Palacios
1988:19). The pottery assemblage from this phase has few neck-less pots, but several jars, closed
bowls, dishes decorated with white painted designs on red background or red paint over white
background, double-spout-and-bridge bottles, and bottles with one spout and a horizontal strap
from the spout to a sculptured head, big open vessels and spoons, along with figurines and
ocarinas (Palacios 1988:20). There are double-spout-and-bridge bottles pretty similar to those
from Huaca La Palma (Palacios 1988: picture 6, fig. 38). In the next phase Huayco, the double-
spout-and-bridge bottles are also very popular, some of them with angled body (Palacios 1988:
picture 14) that resemble those from Huaca La Palma Type 2.
785
In the sequence established by Silva and García, phase Huachipa-Jicamarca C seems to be
coeval with Palacios’ Cerro phase (Silva y García 1997: fig. 6). In this phase there are neck-less
pots with thickened rim. The decoration is geometric, incised and sculptured, along with
punctation in zones, brown paint with two shades, and red slip (Silva y García 2007:207-212).
There are similarities between this pottery with the Early Horizon Period Paracas style from the
South Coast (Silverman 2009:482).
Phase Huachipa-Jicamarca D is subdivided in D1 and D2. In D1 a new ware emerged, red to
oxidised-red, with small particles as inclusions, for making neck-less pots, jars, and double-spout-
and-bridge bottles, some of them with red slip (Silva and García 1997:213).
This pottery is similar to the double-spout-and-bridge bottles from Huaca La Palma. Unlike
what was reported for Pinazo and Huayco phases, in Huachipa Jicamarca D there are more neck-
less pots, with some rims that resemble those from Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa. In D2 continued the
use of double-spout-and-bridge bottles (Silva and García 1997:218, fig. 33h). Similarities between
Huachipa Jicamarca D1 and the Huayco phase from Palacios had been noted (Silva and García
1997:216).
Fragments of this kind of bottle were found in the Canto Grande Ravine, in the site “El
Triunfo” (Abanto 1994: Láminas I a-b). In Huaca La Florida, in the north side of the Rimac River,
a monochrome double-spout-and-bridge bottle with angled body was found in a layer allegedly of
the Initial Period. Fuentes argued that this kind of Pottery is not Topara but from an Initial Period
pottery assemblage of the site (Fuentes 2009:372-373, 597). But this bottle is so similar to the
Topara bottles, that is necessary to discard totally the possibility of an intrusion from upper levels
or if the layer were the bottle was found really is of Initial Period and not of the end of the Early
Horizon Period.
786
North of the Rimac River Valley those bottles are rare. Some of them were found in the Chillon
River Valley in the second phase of the Ventanilla style (Stothert 1980:288; Silva 1996:80; fig. 28
c y d), but are absent in Ancon Bay. In the Chancay River Valley Uhle found those bottles with
white paint decoration over the red natural background of the vessel (Kroeber 1926: Plate 86-f).
Southward, in the desert between the Rimac and Lurin valleys, there are also double-spout-and-
bridge bottles in human burials in the site Villa El Salvador from the beginnings of the Early
Intermediate Period (Stothert 1980:281, fig. 14 y fig. 23). In the nearby site “El Ferroviario” there
is also a cemetery with bottles pretty similar to the Type 1 from Huaca La Palma (Delgado 2007:
30-33, pictures 25 and 48) or with angled body similar to the Type 2 (Delgado 2007: 30-33,
pictures 24 y 26), in the cemetery Tablada de Lurin (Makowski 2009: fig. 5) and the cemetery El
Panel (Paredes 1986: fig. 17). Those sites were looted, especially during the 1970’s. Vessels
confiscated by the authorities have many double-spout-and-bridge bottles (Maguiña and Paredes
2009: Figura 10). One of these bottles was also found in Pachacamac (Maguiña and Paredes 2009:
Figura 14).
Menzel (1971) argued that the Topara tradition, defined originally by Wallace and Lanning for
Epoch 10 of the Early Horizon Period and the Epoch 1 of the Early Intermediate Period in the
South Coast, expanded northward reaching the Rimac River Valley and carried the tradition of
monochrome double-spout-and-bridge bottles to Lima (Menzel 1971:85). Topara is divided into
the following phases: Patos (in the Cañete River Valley), Jahuay 1, Jahuay 2A, Jahuay 2B, Jahuay
3, Chongos A, Chongos B, Quebrada A (in the Cañete River Valley), also known as Campana (in
the Chincha and Pisco river valleys) and Quebrada B (in the Cañete River Valley) (Menzel
1971:90; Silverman 2009: Fig. 23). Double-spout-and-bridge bottles slipped in white (Prouxl
2008: fig. 29.6) emerged in the Jahuay 2 Phase (Menzel 1971:66) and continued into the Chongos
787
phase (Menzel 1971:68). Patterson (1966:98-99) argued that Topara reached Ancon Bay, because
he noted several coincidences between the Base Aerea Phase of the Miramar style from this site
with Topara. But there are no double-spout-and-bridge bottles in Ancon. Silverman argued that
Base Aerea is more related with the Chongos phase (Silverman 2009:475), considering the
double-spout-and-bridge bottles from phase Cerro in Huachipa, rough imitations of Topara
bottles, although this kind of vessels in Puente and Huayco phases had very clear influence from
Topara and Chongos (Silverman 2009:483).
In the Paracas Peninsula in the Wari Kayan cemeteries, the funerary bundles were found with
bottles of this type, some of them with angled bodies, although the bottles from Wari Kayan
usually have longer and more divergent spouts than those from Huaca La Palma. Some of them
have sculptured cucurbitaceous bodies, like in the Pinazo phase, or toads (Tello 1929: fig. 98;
1959: Lámina XXVII: A, B; figs. 24, 25 28, 29, and 30; Bennett 1954: fig. 59; Tello and Mejía
1979: fig. 93 b-c). The vessels illustrated by Tello have been identified as Jahuay 3 and Chongos,
although some of them could be Paracas T-4 or even Nasca 1. That is why the vessels of Paracas
Necropolis are to be considered from different epochs (Menzel 1971:69).
Southward, in the Palpa River Valley, in the site Jauranga, 342 km southeast from the area of
investigation, a Paracas burial with vessels from the Ocucaje style Phase 8, has monochrome
double-spout-and-bridge bottles with angled bodies like those from Huaca La Palma (Reindel and
Isla 2006:fig. 11). The radiocarbon dates associated with the Ocucaje phases 8 and 9 are between
370 and 200 BC, during Epoch 10 of the Early Horizon Period (Reindel and Isla 2006:256).
Double-spout-and-bridge bottles are also present in Early and Middle Lima pottery style, but
always highly decorated with Lima designs (Kroeber 1926: Plate 88A; Tabío 1965: Lámina N°3).
788
Based on this information it is possible to conclude that the monochrome double-spout-and-
bridge bottles from Huaca La Palma are related with the Pinazo and Huayco phases, Huachipa
Jicamarca D phase, Villa El Salvador, Tablada de Lurin, phases 8 and 9 of the Ocucaje style, and
phase Jahuay 2 and Chongos from Topara, between the Epoch 8 of the Early Horizon Period and
the Epoch 2 of the Early Intermediate Period.
D.3 Lima Style:
The ware Lima 1 from the area of investigation is pretty similar to Patterson’s “Scraped Umber
Ware B” that existed from phase 4 until phase 9 of the style. There are also coincidences in the
shapes. The pots with rim Type 9 from the area of investigation are similar to Patterson’s “Olla 4”
for phases from Lima 4 to Lima 8 (Patterson 1966: Fig. 13e, 15a, 17a, 18 d, 20d). But the vessels
with rim Type 8 from the area of investigation in this ware are absent in the Patterson sequence.
The rims of open bowls with strap handles Type 4 and 5 also were not recorded by this author.
The ware Lima 2 from the area of investigation is similar to the “Scraped Terracota Ware B”
and “Terracota Ware D” from Patterson. The first one is in the whole Lima sequence, while the
second one only in phases Lima 8 and 9 (Patterson 1966: 41-42). Open bowls with internal
decoration similar to the rim Type 1 from the area of investigation, called Bowl 1 by Paterson are
in all the Lima style phases (Patterson 1966 Figs. 7a, 9a, 10a, 12a, 14a, 16a, 18a, 20a y 21a). The
rim Type 13 from the area of investigation is similar to jar 16 from Lima phase 9 (Patterson
1966:79, fig. 22c).
Closed bowls are in phases 7 and 9 (Patterson 1966: fig. 18b and 21d). Nevertheless, in the
illustrated examples by Patterson, tubular handles or outlets are absent. The decorative types
789
illustrated by Patterson are different from those on the specimens of the Southern Slope of Huaca
Aramburu in the area of investigation.
Painted designs in red, black and white are common in the nine phases of the Lima sequence
(Patterson 1966:81). The design Type 9 “interlocking” from the area of investigation on the
bodies of closed vessels are in phases 4, 5 and 6, and probably 3 (Patterson 1966:82). The design
type 16 “fish” is in Lima phases 5 and 6 (Patterson 1966:63, 82). Type 9c “interlocking open
mouths” from the area of investigation emerged in phase Lima 2 (Patterson 1966 fig. 9g) and
lasted until phase 8 (Patterson 1966: Plate 2 d-e, fig. 20a), the design Type 9b “Interlocking
squared heads” from the area of investigation emerged in Lima phase 4 (Patterson 1966 fig. 4b)
and lasted until phase Lima 6 (Patterson 1996 Plate 5b).
The decorative Type 21 “white rings on black background” from the area of investigation is
in Lima phase 4. The design Type 10 “concentric Triangles” is in phase 5 (Patterson 1966; Fig.
14a, 14e). The designs in white over black background, like the designs 36, 44 and 45, are in
phase 7 (Patterson 1966:72). The design Type 6 “Red strips with black or black and white rims”
in phases 8 and 9 (Patterson 1966: 76, 78, 83). The design Type 17 “Orange dots and white rings
over black background” is in Lima phases 4, 5 and 6 (Patterson 1966: 82, Plate 3 d-g, Plate 4 f-k).
The design Type 18 “white checkered over red background” in phase Lima 4 (Patterson 1966:59).
The design Type 15 “stepped design” is in phase Lima 5(Patterson 1966: fig. 14e). The design
Type 26 “White dots over black background” from the area of investigation is in phase Lima 4
(Patterson 1966: Table 2).
In Patterson’s publication, there are no references about the ware Lima 3 from the area of
investigation. The ware Lima 4 is equivalent to the “Reduced Ware B” (Patterson 1966: 42-43,
81) from phases Lima 1 to Lima 4 and the “Reduced Ware C” in phases Lima 5 and 8 (1966:42-
790
43, 82). Patterson did not describe any ware like ware Lima 5 from the area of investigation,
although he noted the existence of pan pipes in phases Lima 4 and 6 made with a “slip cast”,
pretty similar to the ware Lima 5 (Patterson 1966: 57, 67).
Taking into consideration this analysis, the Lima pottery collections from the sites Huaca
Huerto Santa Rosa, Huaca Aramburu, Huaca Concha, Huaca 9, and Huaca 21, are situated
between phases 4 and 9 of the Lima sequence established by Patterson.
In the Chillon River Valley, Jorge Silva reported Lima style sherds with shapes and designs
pretty similar to those from the area of investigation, like the rim Type 1 (Silva 1996: fig. 24-a),
and the designs Type 9a (Silva 1996 figs. 24-g), and Type 9 c (Silva 1996: fig 24-I, 26-e).
From huacas Trujillo 1 and Trujillo 2, located on the northern side of the Rimac River in the
Huachipa-Jicamarca Ravine, Silva (1992) published some sherds of pots with rims similar to the
Type 1, Type 8 and Type 9 from the area of investigation (Silva 1992: Figs. 10, 11 y 12). Silva
argued that those artifacts belong to Lima phases 8 and 9 from the Patterson sequence, from the
Early Intermediate Period (Silva 1992:61-62), but he did not explain the characteristics of the
wares of those specimens.
From the Huacas Trujillo 1 and 2, Silva pointed out the presence of body sherds decorated
with black, red and white paint on light red natural background. There are bowls made in a fine
and compact ware with very small inclusions (Silva 1992:62) that could be similar to ware Lima 2
or even ware Nieveria 1 from the area of investigation.
Open bowls with horizontal strap handles on the rim, similar to the types 4 and 5, are in the
collections from those sites (Silva 1992: fig. 21 and probably also fig. 27), although Silva did not
mention the type of ware of this kind of pottery. Outlets, similar to those of Lima bowls Type 1
791
from the Southern Slop of Huaca Aramburu are in Huachipa (Silva 1992 Fig. 23) although Silva
erroneously considered them as bottle necks (Silva 1992:64).
There are also the designs Type 6, “Red strips with black or black and white rims” (Silva 1992:
Fig. 55), Type 10, “Black and white concentric triangles” (Silva 1992: 42), interlocking designs,
Type 9a and 9b (Silva 1992: Figs. 33, 37, 39 y 45), and the design Type 30, “concentric crosses”,
from the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu, in the inner bottom of open vessels (Silva 1992:
Fig. 60).
There are dishes in the collections of Huaca Trujillo and Nieveria (Silva 1992: figs. 16, 17, 50
y 51) that are similar to the rims of open bowls Type 1 and Type 2 from the area of investigation.
Silva argued that those ceramic artifacts belong to Epoch 1A of the Middle Horizon Period (Silva
1992:62).
Guerrero and Palacios (1992) reported Lima pottery from the sites “El Vallecito” and
Huachipa, located in the middle Rimac River Valley. In “El Vallecito” there are pots with rims
Type 8 in a ware called “Paste A” equivalent to ware Lima 1 (Guerrero y Palacios 1994: Figs. 12
y 14) and Type 2 (Guerrero and Palacios 1994: Figs. 8, 9 y 13) from the area of investigation
There are dishes with rims similar to the rims Type 1 and Type 2 from the area of investigation,
although those have design Type 31, “crescent-shaped figures in the rims”, that are absent in the
open bowls of the area of investigation (Guerrero y Palacios 1994: Figs. 17). Designs of Type 2,
“black strips with white rims over natural or red background”, are similar are in jars from
Huachipa (Guerrero and Palacios 1994: Figs. 48, 50-57). Because in this site the vessels are
complete, it is possible to see the complete designs that are vertical strips making angles on the
body. There are some pots with horizontal strap handles and vertical-concave necks (Guerrero and
Palacios 1994 fig. 38) similar to the necks of pots Type 1 from the Makatampu collection with
792
rims of Type 8 and 9. An open bowl with four horizontal straps on the shoulders (Guerrero and
Palacios 1994: fig. 39) is similar to the rims Type 4 and Type 5 from the area of investigation,
especially those from the Southern Slope of the Huaca Aramburu.
From the Niveria Cemetery, excavated by Max Uhle, there are two bowls with one tubular
handle and one outlet, pretty similar in design to the closed bowls Type 1from the Southern Slope
of the Huaca Aramburu (Gayton 1927 Plate 95a and 95c). Patterson argued that these ceramics
belong to Lima phases 8 and 9 (Patterson 1966:128) but the context in where they were found in
Huaca Aramburu is Middle Lima.
Cajamarquilla, the enormous archaeological site composed of pyramids, plazas, walled
enclosures, and small agglutinated rooms, situated in the middle section of the Rimac River 22 km
NE from Maranga, was excavated in several seasons during the 1960’s and the 1990’s. In Sector I
from the Tello Compound, Rafael Segura analyzed a group of Lima vessels that had been ritually
broken and buried. In a ware similar to Lima 2, that Segura called “Ware A”, there are "dishes"
(Segura 2001: Fig. 60) with rims similar to Type 1 and Type 2 from the area of investigation,
although the interlocking design present inside these vessels is absent in Cajamarquilla. There are
also interlocking designs decorating closed vessels in Cajamarquilla (Segura 2001: Fig. 127).
Because in Sector I of the Tello Compound more complete vessels appeared than in the area of
investigation, the painted designs can be seen better. There are red stripes with black and white
rims forming triangles in the body of large pots (Segura 2001: figs. 84-86, 93), and curved red
stripes with black and white rims forming volutes in the body of other big pots (Segura 2001: Fig.
74). There are also white rings on black background as a decorative element (Segura 2001: Fig.
143) that recall the Lima decorative types 10 and 21 from the area of investigation. It is important
793
to note that the last type, which had been characterized by Patterson (1966: 59, 82) as exclusive
from phases Lima 4 to Lima 6, were founded by Segura in vessels of phases 8 and 9.
In the excavations made in Sector XI of the Tello Compound, where a Late Lima occupation
was followed, after a time of abandonment, by Ychsma architectonic reconstructions from the
Late Intermediate Period, there is a ware similar to Type 1 from the area of investigation, called
“Ware 1” (Narváez 2006a:64). There are also some morphological types pretty similar to those
from the area of investigation like the open bowls with rim types 4 and 5 (Narváez 2006a: figs.
37-42). “Ware 2” from Cajamarquilla is equivalent to ware Lima 2 from the area of investigation.
Rim Type 11 in this ware is found in Sector XI (Narváez 2006a: figs. 68-73), along with rims of
Type 12 (Narváez 2006a:fig. 75), Type 14 (Narváez 2006a:fig. 78), and Type 17 (Narváez 2006a:
figs. 85-86).
There are several coincidences in decorative types in sherds made in ware Lima 2 (called
"ware 2" in Cajamarquilla): Type 1, "white lines over black background" (Narváez 2006a: fig.
98), Type 2, ”black strips with white rims” (Narváez 2006a: fig. 100, 133-134), Type 5, "black
line" (Narváez 2006a: fig. 95), Type 6, “curved red strips with black or black and white rims
"(Narváez 2006a: Fig. 108), Type 8, "red stripes with black or black and white rims" (Narváez
2006a:107) Type 9b, “Interlocking quadrangular heads" (Narváez 2006a fig. 76-77, 129), Type
10, "concentric triangles" (Narváez 2006a: fig. 128), and Type 21, “white rings on black
background” (Narváez 2006a: fig. 125-126).) The author argued that the Lima occupation in the
Sector XI of Tello Group in Cajamarquilla should belong to phases 8 and 9 (Narváez 2006a: 174).
In Huaca Pucllana, located in the Huatica Channel Valley, 8 km SE from the area of
investigation, Montoya (1995) made an analysis of the sherds discovered in “Enclosure 2” from
“Small Huaca” sector. She identified two ware groups. Group 1 has big inclusions and is
794
equivalent to ware Lima 3 from the area of investigation. Group 2 was divided in 2a, 2b, and 2c
subgroups. Based on her descriptions, subgroups 2a and 2b are equivalent to ware Lima 2, and 2C
to ware Lima 1. In the shapes, in Pucllana there are dishes called “Type 1-variant 1” that are
similar to the Lima rims Type 1 and Type 2 from the area of investigation, although the
decorative designs are different. There is only one dish with the interlocking design Type 9 in the
interior (Montoya 1995, Lam. IX). In Pucllana there are closed bowls in 2C ware (Montoya 1995:
91, Lámina XX: 458, Lámina LXXVI: 457), similar to the closed bowls with rim Type 4 in ware
Lima 1, and vessels made in ware 2C called Type 1, variant 2 from Pucllana (Montoya 1995:
Lámina LVI), similar to the rims of pots Type 8, although pots with rim Type 9 are absent in the
Pucllana collection.
In Pucllana there are the following decorative types in sherds: Type 2, “black stripes with
white rims over natural or red background” (Montoya 1995: Lam. XCIX:), Type 3, “white lines
over black background” (Montoya 1995: Lam. XCIX, Lam. CI), Type 7, “parallel black lines over
red or natural background” (Montoya 1995: Lam. CII), Type 16, “fish” (Montoya 1995:
Lam. XXXII-492, Lam. CVIII-218), Type 9b, “interlocking quadrangular heads” (Montoya 1995:
Lam. CVIII- 111, 197, 211 y 255), Type 21, “white rings over natural or black backgrounds”
(Lam. CIX-096, 248, Lam. CIX), and Type 20, “white rings on curved black bands with white
rims” (Montoya 1995: Lam. CIX). There are also pan pipes in the same ware as in the area of
investigation (Montoya 1995: Lam. I).
Montoya argued that the pottery that she analyzed from Pucllana has similarities in shape and
types of decorative designs with Lima phases 7, 8, and 9 from the Patterson sequence, although
she noticed the existence of certain decorative elements that are exclusively diagnostic from
795
certain phases that are in combination in some specimens. Thus, she concludes that Patterson’s
sequence has some mistakes maybe because he worked with a small sample (Montoya 1995:216).
Subsequent to Montoya’s work, other authors analysed additional Pucllana pottery collections.
Flores (2005) defined the wares “Pucllana Orange”, that seems to be equivalent to wares Lima 2
and Lima 3 from the area of investigation. Other ware, brown in color, is similar to ware Lima 1
from the area of investigation. A picture of a complete vessel has similarities with the ware Pot
Lima 1 with the rim Type 8 from the area of investigation (Flores 2005: Foto 14). Spoons in a
ware similar to Lima 2 have been found in Pucllana, although they were called “spoon dishes”
(Flores 2005: 58-59, picture 15). There is also reduced pottery called “Pucllana Gray”, in jars, that
is equivalent to ware Lima 5 from the area of investigation (Flores 2005:59). Miniature vessels,
akin to Lima pot Type 2 from Makatampu, has been found in Pucllana as part of ritual offerings
(Flores 2005: Foto 27), and also pan pipes (Flores 2005: Foto 28).
In the disappeared site “Bajada Balta”, located in the summit of the Miraflores cliffs, in the
Huatica Channel Valley 9 km SE from the area of investigation, some burials were found with
Lima pots Type 1 (Kroeber 1954: 79), and Type 2 (Kroeber 1954 fig. 80). In the same site, sherds
were found with the design Type 15, “stepped design”, and “Interlocking” types 9a and 9b
(Kroeber 1954: fig. 82).
In Pachacamac, in the Lurin River Valley, William Strong and John Corbett found a massive
rubbish dump in the west side of the “Temple of the Sun”, where they established an occupational
sequence from the Early Intermediate Period to the Late Horizon Period, defining the presence of
several pottery styles along the sequence (Strong and Corbett 1943). The style called by them
“Pachacamac Interlocking Style” is known now as “Lima”.
796
In Strong and Corbett’s publication there are the following Lima decorative types: Type 18,
“white checkered over red background” (Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 13 d), Type 42, “Black
stripes with white rims forming angles” (Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 13 i), Type 6, “curved red
strips with black or black and white rims” (Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 13 k), “interlocking”
designs Type 9b on the external surface of closed vessels (Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 13 g, fig.
14 d-e), interlocking Type 9a on the internal surface of open bowls (Strong and Corbett 1943: fig.
15 g-h) and interlocking Type 9c (Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 15 a, f, j, l, g), Type 28, “tear”
(Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 13 i), Type 10, “Black and white concentric triangles” (Strong and
Corbett 1943: fig. 15 c, fig. 17 a. c, f, l), and Type 26, “white dots over black background”
(Strong and Corbett 1943: fig. 17 d-e) from the area of investigation. Patterson analyzed the
pottery of this collection and concluded that those artifacts should be between his phases Lima 3
to Lima 9 (Patterson 1966:130-132).
In Pachacamac, in the “Small Mud-Bricks Compound”, some excavations were made between
1964 and 1966 and then in 2000. Lima architecture with small mud bricks were forming small
enclosures and corridors, and tree trunks as posts were found in the site, along with human burials
(Lavallée 1966: 220, Bueno 1983:8, Marcone 2001).
Unfortunately, the contexts of the first season of investigations were poorly recorded (Lavallée
1966: 221). But, the pottery artifacts were analyzed by Lavallée defining a first group called Playa
Grande/Pachacamac. She recognized two types of wares that she called “a” and “b”, equivalents
to ware Lima 2. Also, there are dishes similar to Types 1 and 2 (Lavallée 1966: 227, Lámina 4),
the design Type 31, “Crescent-shaped figures in the rims” in open vessels (Lavallée 1966:227,
Lámina 4), Type 28, “tear” in vessels called “beakers” (Lavallée 1966: 227, Lámina 4, fig. 4),
797
Type Interlocking 9a (Lavallée 1966: Lámina 6 y 8), Interlocking 9b (Lavallée 1966: Lámina 8-
b), and Interlocking 9c (Lavallée 1966: Lámina 6 c-e).
Contrasting the pottery from the “Small Mud-Bricks Compound”, with the Patterson sequence,
Lavallée concluded that several sherds analyzed by her should be Lima 4, 5 and 6. But, some
sherds with exclusively characteristics of Lima 8 and 9 were attached to other sherds with
characteristics of the Lima 5 phase. This led Lavallée to conclude that the Patterson sequence had
some errors because it was done mostly stylistically without much stratigraphic control (Lavallée
1966:236).
From the 2000 season, there are vessels with Interlocking 9a decoration on the inside
(Marcone 2010: fig. 8.6) from phases 5 and 6 of the Lima sequence, although the author
erroneously thought that they could be Late Lima (Marcone 2010:144).
In the “Old Pachacamac temple”, the excavations made in the site discovered abundant pottery
artifacts in the construction phases of the building, that have similarities with the Lima artifacts
from the area of investigation: open bowls, types 4 and 5 (Franco and Paredes 2003:139, fig. 280),
closed bowls with the interlocking design Type 9c (Franco y Paredes 2003: fig. 283), dishes with
the design Interlocking 9a on the interior (Franco y Paredes 2003: fig. 294), and a sherd similar to
the bowl H21-31 from Huaca 21 with internal decoration (Franco y Paredes 2003:296), closed
bowls with outlets (Franco y Paredes 2003:139, figs. 296), and a sculptured fragment similar to
the human representation Type 27 from the Southern Slope of Huaca Aramburu (Franco y
Paredes 2003:297). Those artifacts are not Early Lima, as the authors argued, they are Middle
Lima (phases 4-6 in the Lima sequence).
798
D.4) Nieveria Style:
In the excavations of Sector XI of the Tello Group in Cajamarquilla, Nieveria pottery was
found in a very reduced proportion compared with the Ychsma and Lima styles (Narváez
2006:96-99). Two Nieveria wares were recognized, “ware 6” equivalent to ware Nieveria 1, and
“ware 7” equivalent to the ware Nieveria 2 (Narváez 2006a:64-65). There is only one decorative
design common in both areas; Type 12 “interlocking” (Narváez 2006: fig. 146 and fig. 154) y
Type 1 “red line” (Narváez 2006a: fig. 147).
In Pucllana, there are bowls pretty similar to the Nieveria closed bowl Type 1, but with three
different deigns: the design Type 14 “Nieveria Serpent” (Ccencho 2006 fig. 2b), Type 17
“Chakipampa Serpent” (Ccencho 2006 fig. 7) and Type 6 “Fleur-de-lis” (Ccencho 2006: fig. 7).
The wares Nieveria 3 and Nieveria 4 from the area of investigation seem to be the same as
those identified as “Paste F” and “Paste E” respectively, from Huachipa and Huampani in the
middle Rimac River Valley (Guerrero y Palacios 1994:294, 297-298).
Louis Stumer found several human burials in the site “Huaquerones” in the Middle Rimac
River Valley, 17 km NE from the area of investigation. Among the artifacts found in the site,
there is an important collection of reduced black pottery called “Maranga Black Style”, although
those specimens appeared with Wari and Nieveria pottery (Stumer 1957). There is a group of
vessels with jars and bottles with long vertical and narrow necks with a vertical strap handle from
shoulders to neck (Stumer 1954: figs. 4-7) that have similarities with the vessels discovered in
Huaca Huerto Santa Rosa HSR-329 y HSR-217, although those vessels are very incomplete.
It is difficult to identify correctly the designs and shapes of the Nieveria pottery style
discovered in the sites of the area of investigation because the sherds are very small. The only
complete Nieveria vessel is the closed Bowl Type 1 discovered in the Western Passage in
799
Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu. A similar vessel came from the Nieveria cemetery, although with
different painted designs (Gayton 1927: Plate 95 a, b y c).
D.5 Wari pottery styles:
The most common Chakipampa design in the specimens from the area of study is Type 27
“Chakipampa Serpent”, that seems to be derived from Ayacucho, where it was found in Wari
(Rowe et al. 1960: fig. 44a). With some modifications, the same design is on the external side of a
jar in Ancon (Ravines 1979) assigned to the Middle Horizon Epoch 1B (Kaulicke 1997: Fig. 51-
D2), a bowl from the site “UPIS San José” in the Chincha River Valley (Alcalde et al. 2001:549,
fig. 8c, Fig. 10c), on a tripod bottle in a burial in the Pyramid Tello in Cajamarquilla (Mogrovejo
and Segura 2000: fig. 5) and in Mochica-Wari vessels from the site San José del Moro in the
Jequetepeque River Valley in the North Coast, 600 km NW of the area of investigation.
Another Chakipampa design is the Type 24 “Chakipampa Flower” This design emerged in
Wari (Rowe et al. 1950: fig. 44c), and with some modifications, was found in a closed bowl with
tubular handle published by Shady, although without specifying the provenance, from the Middle
Horizon Epoch 2B (Shady 1982a: fig. 20b, 46). This design is also on two jars from the Nieveria
cemetery (Gayton 1926: Plate 92d, Plate 96j) and Pachacámac (Uhle 1903: Lámina 5 fig. 8).
Menzel considered the Pachacamac style pretty similar to Atarco style from the South Coast,
which combines elements from Derived Nieveria, Conchopata from Ayacucho and other Wari
styles, located chronologically in the Middle Horizon Epoch 2. Specimens from this style have
been found in Pachacamac in the Lurin River Valley, in the Rimac River Valley and Ancon,
although some specimens were found in Casma and Supe river valleys in the North-central Coast.
800
Two phases were defined: Pachacamac A and Pachacamac B, from epochs 2A and 2B of the
Middle Horizon Period respectively (Menzel 1964: 53, 55-56).
The most common Pachacamac design in the area of investigation is Type 17 “Condor heads”,
that seems to be the representation of the head of the “griffin”, a fantastic creature that results
from the combination of feline, human, and condor (Menzel 1964:59), and which seems to derive
from Conchopata style designs from Ayacucho (Isbell 2000 fig. 4). This design was found in
Huaca Aramburu in the excavations in the summit of Platform 2 (Chauca 2009: figs. 5.4, 5.6, 5.7,
5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.20, 5.21, 5.23, 5.30, 5.31, and 5.32). This representation
was found in Pachacamac and was considered by Uhle to be from the “Epigonal Period” (Uhle
1908 fig. 17b). It was found only on bottles and jars (Nash 2012: fig. 66) or bowls (Eeckout 2010:
fig. 10) from Pachacamac and on fragments of a bottle of Pachacamac style from the site of “El
Palacio” in the Cajamarca Valley in the northern highlands (Watanabe 2001: fig. 11), also as part
of the headdress of a person on a beaker from San Jose del Moro in the Jequetepeque River
Valley (Castillo 2012: Fig. 37). Condor heads are also present emerging radially from the head of
the “Staff deities” in giant vessels from the site of Pacheco in the Nasca/Río Grande River Valley
in the South Coast (Bergh and Jennings 2012: fig. 5a and 5b).
The design Type 6, “Stepped design” from the area of investigation, was found in the inner
surface of open bowls from the Ica River Valley in the South Coast from Epoch 2B of the Middle
Horizon Period (Menzel 1964: Plate IX-28), and in the Atarco style in the site “El Pampón” in the
Palpa River Valley (Isla 2001:fig. 13).
The Wari design Type 8, “Black border on white background”, from the area of investigation,
is on Wari vessels around different designs. It was found in Pachacamac (Uhle 1903: Lámina 5,
fig. 4), on a beaker from San José del Moro in the Jequetepeque River Valley around the face of a
801
person (Castillo 2012: fig. 30), or in Pacheco in Nasca, around the face of the “Staff deity” (Bergh
and Jennings 2012: Fig. 1). There are variants of this design, like the same border but in red over
yellow background, around the face of a person on a beaker of the Atarco or Pachacamac style
(Isbell and Young-Sanchez 2012:fig. 243).
Design Type 12, “split-faced band,” is very common and in several cases is isolated in beakers
like on one sherd from the “Old Temple” of Pachacamac (Franco and Paredes 2000 fig. 22 e,
2003: Fig. 177, fig. 183), or decorating the garments of certain persons like in an Atarco style
bottle (Nash 2012: fig. 54), or on Viñaque style a jar (Bergh 2012: fig. 146), and in a beaker from
San José del Moro in Jequetepeque (Castillo 2001:fig. 15).
Wari Design 9, “chevron” from the area of investigation, is also pretty common in the Wari
pottery. Usually, it appears in vertical strips dividing design panels, as on a vessel from
Pachacamac (Franco y Paredes 2000: fig. 22b-c), or decorating the upper part of the necks of
vessels, as on a specimen from Robles Moqo (Nash 2012: fig. 63) and Atarco styles (Knobloch
2012: fig. 91), and on sherds from the Old Temple of Pachacamac (Franco and Paredes 2003: Fig.
177).
Design Type 14, “radial design”, can be seen on a Robles Moqo style vessel (Nash 2012: fig.
63). Design 21, “plume”, is present as part of a bigger design a double-spout-and-bridge bottle
(Nash 2012:fig. 64; Castillo 2012:fig. 37), and on a bowl of the Atarco style from Miraflores in
the Cajamarca Valley (Watanabe 2001: fig. 6).
The Wari design Type 18, “fish”, has similarities with the designs of a bottle of Loro style
from the Paredones site in Nasca (Isla 2001: fig, 11). Design Type 28, “white spheres with black
lines in the interior”, is very common and appears accompanying the “griffin” or other fantastic
802
beings on Pachacamac style vessels (Uhle 1903: Lámina 4, fig. 4; Schmidt 1929: 285, 286, Nash
2012: fig. 65, fig. 66) and from the Nieveria cemetery (Gayton 1927: plate 91, Fig. b).
Design Type 19, “Camelid head” or feline heads, are the heads of fantastic anthropomorphic
personages (Menzel 1964: PlateVII-21; 1968: Plate XXXVII: 41) that are sometimes isolated
from other designs (Menzel 1964: Plate VII fig. 20) on a vessel of Middle Horizon Epoch 2B.
Design Type 20, “camelid silhouette”, occurs on the inner side of open vessels, as in the Early
Patibamba and Middle Patibamba phases from Jargampata 357 km SE from the area of
investigation, in the San Miguel River Valley (Isbell 1977: Plate 17 A1-A2, Fig. 41 E).
There is a tripod pot with horizontal strap handles from the Nieveria cemetery, similar to the
Wari pot Type 1 from the West Passage of the Platform in Huaca Aramburu (Gayton 1927: Plate
92e) and one from the Chilca River Valley (Engel 1984: Plate 20 P.4484). This kind of vessel was
found in Conchopata in Ayacucho (Ochatoma 2007). Vessels with rim Type 5 from Huaca
Aramburu were found in Jargampata. Those vessels were assigned to the Middle Patibamba or
Late Patibamba I phases, from the Middle Horizon Period epochs 2A and 2B (Isbell 1977:44;
fig.20).
Vessels similar to Beaker Type 1 and Closed Bowl Type 1 are also in Jargampata in Late
Patibamba phases I and II (Isbell 1977:Fig. 35 D, fig. 35 E) and in Huaquerones in the Middle
Valley of the Rímac River (Stumer 1954: fig. 11).
Engraved marks on the inner side of open vessels, like those from the West Passage in the
Platform 2 of Huaca Aramburu, were found in the Middle Cotahuasi River Valley in the site
Tenahaha, 570 km SW from Maranga, on Viñaque style vessels locally manufactured (Jennings
2010:fig. 3.4). Jennings argued that those marks could identify groups of religious affiliations
(Jennings 2010:46).
803
D.6 Pativilca Pottery Style:
Only one jar of this style was found in Makatampu. This vessel has two designs on both sides of
the body. Design 1 represents two standing personages holding their hair that become serpents,
and on the other side, design 2, are two stooped felines. The design 1 is on one vessel from
Ancon. It was considered to be from the Epoch 3 of the Middle Horizon (Kaulicke 1997: fig. 59-
1), and on a vessel from the Supe River valley (Kroeber 1926 Plate 71 fig. d). It is a common
representation in Pativilca style isolated (Carrión 1959: Figs. 98, 99, 100, and 101) or as part of
bigger scenes (Carrion 1959: figs. 29, 30, 31, 35, and 36).
One of the variants of the stooped felines, as well as the personages with hair turning into
snakes, is on the Pachacamac Idol from the Pachacamac style from Epoch 2 of the Middle
Horizon Period (Shimada 1991: XXIII; Ángeles y Pozzi-Escot: 2010: 189-190; Vallejo
2009:147), although it was also argued that the idol actually is from Epoch 3 of the Middle
Horizon Period (Vallejo 2009:146).
D.7 Three-color Geometric Pottery Style:
At the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period between the valleys of the rivers Pativilca and
Lurin, there was a pottery style whose main characteristic was the use of three colors, red, black,
and white, for making geometric decorative designs. The first description of this style was made
by William Strong when he analyzed Uhle’s collections from Ancon, defining a style that he
called “three color” for phase Ancon I (Strong 1925). In that collection, there are two jars with the
Three-color Geometric decoration Type 8, “concentric crescent-shaped design in the rim”, (Strong
1925 Plate 43 fig. j and k; Kaulicke 1997 fig. 55 D1 y D2), and stirrup spout bottles with four
tubular handles (Strong 1925: Plate 43 n; Kaulicke 1997: fig. 55E, fig. 8-4). Kaulicke argued that
804
those vessels could be in the three first epochs of the Late Intermediate Period (Kaulicke
1997:13).
Alfred Kroeber made another study of Max Uhle’s collection from the Chancay River Valley.
He called this kind of vessel “Tree-color Geometric” style (Kroeber 1926: 272-273) defining it as
follows:
“Three-color Geometric is characterized by its restriction to R, W, B, its overwhelming or
exclusive use of geometric as opposed to representative ornament, a mediocre execution, and a
dull finish. Characteristic of its designs are red stripes or broadish lines on a white ground, their
angles filled with small black-bordered enclosures which often contain a dot or dash. The red
"framework" is most typically a step, a zigzag, or a pair of zigzag lines crossing to form a row of
diamonds. The little black-bordered outlines are, correspondingly, rectangles, isosceles triangles,
and diamonds” (Kroeber 1926:272).
Gordon Willey made a study of the ceramics recovered during his excavations in the site
Necropolis in Ancon. In some of those burials he found Three-color pottery from his phase Late
Ancon I, that has many similarities with the Three-color vessels from Makatampu, like the jar
Type 7 (Willey 1943: Plate 1 fig. f-h), and the stirrup-spout bottle Type 1 (Willey 1943: Plate 1
fig. e).
In the Uhle’s collection from Chancay, there are certain vessels that have similarities with
some of the geometric Three-color style from Makatampu. The design Type 22 “tracks” are in a
jar (Kroeber 1926 Plate 81-D), a vessel with vertical strap handles from shoulders to neck, with a
sculptured monkey, has similarities with the Three-color Geometric Jug Type 1, that also has the
design Type 8, “concentric crescent-shaped design in the rim” (Kroeber 1926: Plate 84d). There is
also a canteen-shaped body vessel with a design similar to Three-color Geometric Type 26,
805
“circle divided in triangular sections with dots” (Kroeber 1926: Plate 84-D), and a stirrup-spout-
bottle with a sculptured monkey and a small vertical handle from the big handle to the rim that
resembles the Three-color Geometric bottle Type 1 (Kroeber 1926: Plate 85-E).
Another collection that is useful for comparative purposes is from the Huaca Huallamarca
located in the Huatica Channel Valley, 6 km SE of the area of investigation. The site is a pyramid
from the beginnings of the Early Intermediate Period, which became a cemetery from the middle
part of the Early Intermediate Period to the Late Intermediate Period (Dolorier and Casas
2008:24). The vessels with Three-color decoration are identified in the site as “Ichma Orange
Ornamental” and “Three-color Geometric”, but there are few coincidences between those types
and the Three-color vessels from Makatampu. There is only one jar with convergent-convex neck
that seems to have the design Type 11, “white stepped design” on the neck (Dolorier and Casas
2008: fig. 2C). The lack of more coincidences could indicate chronological differences between
both collections.
Another style defined in Huallamarca was called “Three-color Geometric”, which is related to
Strong’s Three-color for Ancon and Kroeber’s “Three-color Geometric” from the Chancay River
Valley (Dolorier and Casas 2009). There are two variants. “Three-color Geometric White Base”
has designs in red and black colors painted over a white background. In this group there are
stirrup-spout bottles (Dolorier y Casas 2009: Fig. 1 – B, N y Ñ), that have certain similarities with
Bottle Type 1 from Makatampu. Three-color Geometric Red Base has a vessel pretty similar to
jar Type 1 MT-6838. They are similar by the presence of a human face applied to the body.
Unfortunately the specimen from Makatampu is partially eroded on the surface, although, based
on what was preserved, the designs on both vessels are similar. The most important difference is
that the Makatampu vessel has a sculptured monkey applied to the joint between the body and the
806
neck, while the specimen from Huallamarca does not. The authors thought that it is an owl head
(Dolorier and Casas 2009:182), but it seems to be more anthropomorphic. The Three-color
Geometric pottery from Huallamarca is assigned to the first three epochs of the Late Intermediate
Period (Casas and Dolorier 2009:185).
Based on this, it is possible to argue that the collection of Three-color Geometric vessels from
the area of investigation should belong to the first three epochs of the Late Intermediate Period,
coeval with Early Ychsma A in Vallejo’s sequence.
D.8 Ychsma Pottery Style:
Vallejo defined the existence of three wares: A, B and C (Vallejo 2004:599-600). The A type,
that he called “littoral” is lightly red to orange and has calcareous and fine sand inclusions, and
seems to be equivalent to ware Ychsma 1. Type B, also called “Ravine”, is characterized by the
use of clays formed in rocky slopes, and it is similar to Ychsma 2 and Ychsma 3 wares, and the
Type C “lomas” is similar to the ware Ychsma 4, Ychsma 8 and Ychsma 10.
In phase Early Ychsma A, open bowls and beakers are common as well as double-body
vessels (Vallejo 2004:607). Ychsma double-body jars types 53 and 54, jug Type 15 and the bottle
Type 1 from Makatampu, belong to this phase. In this phase the decoration in white, red, cream
and black is common (Vallejo 2004:608) and should be coeval with the Three-color Geometric
style.
In phase Early Ychsma B, open bowls, and dishes, disappeared and the decoration is reduced
to three colors: cream, white and black (Vallejo 2004:608). This fact should put the Three-color
vessels from Makatampu for sure before Early Ychsma B. In this phase the vessels with
composite necks with small conical ceramic appendixes are common. The pots Type 3, Type 9,
807
Type 88, and Type 90 should be from this phase. Based on Vallejo’s sequence, the pots Type 41,
Type 87, and jars Type 31, and Type 28 seem to have emerged in this phase (Vallejo 2004: fig. 4
y fig. 5).
In phase Middle Ychsma A, pots with pedestals appeared (Vallejo 2004 Fig. 17a), so the
Ychsma pots Type 54, Type 55, Type 56, Type 57 and Type 58 should be in this phase, along
with the pots Type 21, 27, and 103, and the jar Type 37 (Vallejo 2004: fig. 7). Rims Type 39
(Vallejo 2004: fig. 8a), Type 20 and Type 21 (Vallejo 2004: fig. 8 f), Type 22 (Vallejo 2004: fig.
8b), Type 15 (Vallejo 2004: fig. 8-k), Type 31 (Vallejo 2004: fig. 8c), emerged in this phase.
Another important innovation was the big neck-less jars with T-shaped rims (Vallejo 2004:612),
that are similar to the Ychsma rim Type 47.
In the Middle Ychsma A phase, a kind of vessel called “Cuculi” appeared first time at the site
of this name located in the Chilca River Valley (Engel 1984; Vallejo 2004:613). Those vessels are
monochrome, with composite necks, or very pronounced convex-convergent necks called “tulip”
(Vallejo 2004:613). Vessels of this type are in the Makatampu collection: pots Type 30, Type 31,
jars Type 27, Type 28, and Type 29, as well as part of the Ychsma rims Type 35.
The decorative most common type is the “Dripped Cream” (Vallejo 2004: 614) that appeared
on several vessels in the area of investigation where it has been identified as design Type 1,
“white brush strokes”, and also the punctated and incised decoration forming designs specially on
the rims (Vallejo 2004.614-615, fig.10), although this particular type was not found in the area of
investigation.
In phase Middle Ychsma A, figurines representing women, dogs, foxes and camelids are pretty
common (Vallejo 2004:614-615). There is also the application of sculptured elements in the shape
of animals or persons in one or both sides of the vessels (Vallejo 2004:616). This fact put the
808
Ychsma vessels Jug Type 19, and the jar Type 20, with a zoomorphic representation applied to
the body, from Makatampu (MT-0056) in this phase, something that is also congruent with its
“tulip” type neck.
In phase Middle Ychsma B the pots with pedestal bases continued, introducing the tradition of
making vessels with cucurbitaceous-shaped bodies (Vallejo 2004:617). This fact put the Ychsma
pots Type 104, part of the jars Type 28, Type 29, Type 31, Type 32, Type 34, Type 36, Type 37,
jug type 16, Pot Type 11, Type 14, Type 21, Type 91 and type 104, with the Ychsma design Type
25, “sculptured cucurbitaceous on the body”, from this phase forward. Certain vessels with a
sculptured human face in the neck, commonly known as “Face-neck jars”, also emerged in this
phase like the pot Type 112, and the jars Type 44, Type 45, Type 57, Type 58, and the jugs Type
8, Type 9, and Type 20, that should be from this phase forward, including a person with a bird in
his hands (Vallejo 2004:619) like MT-3578 (Jug Type 20). The vessels with “tulip neck” and
brown ware continue also during this phase (Vallejo 2004:620), the big neck-less jars with “T”-
shaped rims (Vallejo 2004:620), and Chancay style vessels began to be introduced in different
contexts in this phase (Vallejo 2004:621).
In phase Late Ychsma A wide open bowls appeared with angled bodies and black painted
designs (Vallejo 2004:621), like the Ychsma rims Type 54 and Type 55. There are also vessels
with vertical strap handles from the shoulders to the neck with a sculptured dog applied to the
body (Vallejo 2004:622). A very important type that emerged in this phase is the pot with vertical
strap handles from shoulders to rim (Vallejo 2004:622), like pots Type 32 and rim Type 44. A
decorative element Type 5 “serpent in relief” began in his phase (Vallejo 2004:622), that is
applied to the bodies of the pots Type 66, Type 75, Type 32, Type 42, Type 82, Type 83 and Type
66. There are also beveled rims (Vallejo 2004:624) found on pots Type 82, Type 83, Type 84,
809
Type 85, Type 86 and in rims Type 25, Type 26, Type 27, Type 28, and Type 29, and from this
phase forward, big jars with enlarged rims towards the outside in lenticular shape (Vallejo
2004:624) like the Ychsma rim Type 30.
In Late Ychsma B the elaboration of pots with decoration Type 5, “serpent in relief”,
continued, although an innovation is the stamped circle decoration on the body (Vallejo
2004:632), along with Type 10, mold-made figurines (Vallejo 2004:636), and open bowls with
two sculptured toads applied to the sides that function as handles (Vallejo 2004:630), like in the
rim Ychsma Type 54 from Mateo Salado.
Vallejo argued that in the Late Ychsma B phase, along with the local Ychsma tradition, in the
Central Coast three styles of foreign origin emerged: Regional Inca, Chimu and Chimu-Inca. In
the Regional Inca style, there are vessels that imitate typical vessels of the Inca style from Cuzco
in the southern highlands, although there are vessels locally made that can be recognized by their
polished surfaces, decorated with orange, and red slips and reduced vessels and “plumbagine”
external finishing (Vallejo 2004:630).
Specimens imitating Inca pottery are very uncommon in the area of investigation. There is
only one Inca aryballos from Huaca 64-A and a sherd of another Inca aryballos from “Huaca Tres
Palos” (Mac Kay and Santa Cruz 2010:16-18; Cárdenas 1965:160). Other Inca regional specimens
that match Vallejo’s descriptions came from Makatampu: Jug Type 9 (MT-6934) and Jug Type 10
(MT-3873 y MT-3586), the “Personage of the Five Small Jars” (Ramos 1970b), and a vessel with
the representation of a sitting person scratching his sole from Makatampu (MT-3586), a type that
is considered by Vallejo as Inca Regional (Vallejo 2004:629)
Design Type 5, “serpent in relief”, applied on the external surface of some vessels occurs in
phases Late Ychsma A and Late Ychsma B. The pots with divergent necks and rounded vertical
810
handles from shoulders to neck Type 4 emerged in phase Middle Ychsma A, lasting until the end
of the sequence (Vallejo 2004: Fig. 7c, 7d, Fig. 12c, 20e y 22b, Díaz y Vallejo 2002:66 where is
known as “Shape 25”). Ychsma pots with rim Type 1 and pot Type 2 are in phases Late Ychsma
A and B (Vallejo 2004: Figs. 8h, f).
In the site “Huaca Naranjal”, in the Chillon River Valley 11 km north of the area of
investigation, there is Late Ychsma B pottery from the Late Horizon Period with the following
types: RimType 47 (Maquera 2008: fig. 5 TIPO 4), and Rim Type 30 (Maquera 2008: fig. 5 TIPO
6). The identifying wares A, C, D y F from this site seem to be equivalent to the ware Ychsma 1,
ware B to Ychsma 2, and ware E2 to Ychsma 3.
In the Aznapuquio Huaca, also in the Chillon River valley, 9 km north of the area of
investigation, there is a Late Ychsma occupation from the Late Horizon Period. The associated
pottery has two types: rim Type 15 (Espinoza et al. 2008 fig. 12b), rim Type 44 (Espinoza et al.
fig. 12c), and rim Type 47 (Espinoza et al. 2008 fig. 24).
Jorge Silva registered pottery specimens from the Chillon River Valley from the Late
Intermediate Period, some of them pretty similar to those from the area of investigation: pot Type
95 (Silva 1996: fig. 39-e), jar Type 30 (Silva 1996: fig. 39-d), rims Type 5 (Silva 1996: fig. 39-g),
Type 35 (Silva 1996: fig. 40c), Type 15 (Silva 1996: fig. 41-a), Type 41 (Silva 1996: fig. 41-b),
Type 33 (Silva 1996: fig. 42c), Type 38 (Silva 1996: fig. 42-a), and Type 18 (Silva 1996: fig. 42-
b). From the Late Horizon Period: rims Type 9 (Silva 1996: fig. 53 d), Type 15 (Silva 1996: fig.
54 t), Type 26 (Silva 1996: fig. 52-t), Type 29 (Silva 1996: fig. 55 e), Type 30 (Silva 1996 fig. 53
f, 56 o-p), Type 45 (Silva 1996: fig. 52 r), Type 47 (Silva 1996: Fig. 52 a-l), Type 30 (Silva 1996:
fig. 53 d), Type 35 (Silva 1996: fig. 56 n), and Type 44 (Silva 1996: fig. 54 u, 55 g),
811
In Huaca Tupac Amaru B, situated in the Huatica Channel Valley10 km SE from the area of
investigation, Late Ychsma B vessels were found from burials that intruded into an old Lima
building. Following the erroneous Ychsma sequence made by Bazan, Rodriguez situated these
contexts in several groups. The first one, called “Group A” belongs to the “Initial Ichma” phase
, because there is a type called “Brown over Cream” defined by Bazan in the site Huaca Santa
Catalina in the Huatica Channel Valley for this phase (Rodríguez 1999: 79). Group B is also
“Initial Ichma” (Rodríguez 1999: 80) and has 15 wares (from A to Ñ). Ware A seems to be
equivalent to ware Ychsma 9, wares B, C, D, E, H, I, J, K, and L to ware Ychsma 2, and ware N
to ware Ychsma 4. Ware G is similar to ware Ychsma 2 but belongs to an Inca aryballos. The
pernicious result of this kind of classification, making divisions based on tiny differences, is in
that for Rodriguez from 35 vessels 26 of them are classified in 5 groups and the remaining 9 are
specific cases, in other words, only one sample for each ware (Rodríguez 1999: 95). Based on
Vallejo’s sequence, the Ychsma collection from Huaca Tupac Amaru B actually belongs to the
Late Ychsma phases A and B.
In this Huaca there are pots with divergent neck with vertical rounded handles from shoulders
to neck (Rodríguez 1999: figs. 106-107, fig. 110, 112, 122, 124, 132) equivalent to the pot Type
21 and rim Type 42 from the area of investigation. A jar of composite neck (Rodríguez 1999: Fig.
120) is similar to the Ychsma rim Type 3, and some pots with short divergent-straight necks
(Rodríguez 1999: Fig. 126) have similarities with the Ychsma rim Type 10.
In the middle Rimac River Valley, in the Huacas Trujillo 1 and 2, Jorge Silva recovered
pottery from the Late Horizon Period, although he did not describe the types of wares in his
collections. But it is possible to note several coincidences with the collections from the area of
investigation. There are similarities with rims Type 10 (Silva 1992: Fig. 70), Type 34 (Silva 1992:
812
Fig. 71), Type 15 (Silva 1992: Fig. 78), that Silva considered from the Late Intermediate Period,
but because the presence of the Ychsma decoration Type 5, “Serpent in relief”, they should be
Late Ychsma A or B from the end of the Late Intermediate or the Late Horizon periods. There is
also a composite neck pot similar to the Ychsma pot Type 108, and a sculptured fragment
representing a feline, pretty similar to the decorative element Type 26, in a Jug Type 19 from
Makatampu (MY-2856). A group of rims that Silva considered Late Horizon are equivalent to
Type 25 (Silva 1992: fig. 92, 118), Type 15 (Silva 1992: figs. 93, 107), Type 48 (Silva 1992: fig.
95), and the decorative types: Type 10 “Impressed rings” (Silva 1992: fig. 97-98), rims Type 45
(Silva 1992: fig. 105), Type 30 (Silva 1992: fig. 108), Type 1 (Silva 1992: fig. 109), Type 47
(Silva 1992: fig. 110), Type 46 (Silva 1992: fig. 117, 120), Type 32 (Silva 1992: fig. 121), Type
29 (Silva 1992: fig. 120, 125, 141), Type 6 (Silva 1992: fig. 131) and Type 59 (Silva 1992: fig.
94).
In Cajamarquilla there was an important Ychsma occupation that covered the Late Lima phase
in the site. In the excavations made in Sector XI of the “Tello Compound”, pottery was found that
has similarities with the pottery from the area of investigation. In Cajamarquilla there are four
Ychsma wares, with “ware 8” equivalent to ware Ychsma 4 from the area of investigation, and
“ware 9” to ware Ychsma 2 from the area of investigation (Narváez 2006:65). There are jars with
composite necks equivalent to the Ychsma rim Type 35 (Narváez 2006: figs. 161-165, Figs. 162-
167), slightly composite like Type 33 (Narváez 2006: Fig. 173), Type 42 (Narváez 2006: Type
175-176), Type 52 (Narváez 2006: fig. 188), with vertical and horizontal handles in the body
(Narváez 2006: figs. 191-198), and sherds with the decoration Type 1, “white brush strokes”
(Narváez 2006: fig. 190). In some late burials found in the Sestieri Compound in Cajamarquilla,
figurines representing naked women (Narváez 2006: fig. 230), an open bowl similar to the bowl
813
Type 1 (Narváez 2006: fig. 231), pots Type 24 (Narváez 2006: fig. 233), Type 21 (Narváez 2006:
fig. 234), Type 55 (Narváez 2006: fig. 235-236), and jar Type 30 (Narváez 2006: fig. 242) were
found.
In Canto Chico, a late settlement in the Canto Grande Ravine 10 km NE from the area of
investigation, the excavations made there during the 1990’s discovered pottery from Late
Ychsma. Among the shapes in the area of investigation there are: rim Type 57 (Ravines 2000:139,
fig. 15), pots Type 8 (Ravines 2000:139, fig. 7), Type 108 (Ravines 2000:139, fig. 8),Type 21
(Ravines 2000: 138, fig. 1, 141-169), Type 32 (Ravines 2000:138, fig. 4, 161-162, 166), Type 17
(Ravines 2000:139, fig. 13 ), rims Type 18 (Ravines 2000:170, 171), Type 35 (Ravines
2000:172), Type 6 (Ravines 2000:173), Type 16 (Ravines 2000:174), Type 9 (Ravines 2000:175),
Type 10 (Ravines 2000:179-5393), Type 29 (Ravines 2000:184-5222), Type 25 (Ravines
2000:200, 209, 211), Type 36 (Ravines 2000: 215), bowl Type 1 (Ravines 2000:217-2293), big
neck-less jars rim Type 47 (Ravines 2000: 218-228), and Type 45 (Ravines 2000: 229-230), and
figurines representing persons and camelids (Ravines 2000: 260-263).
In La Salina, a U-shaped pyramid located in the Surco Channel Valley, 15 km NE from the
area of investigation, two late burials were found with pottery similar to: Pot Type 42 (Machacuay
and Aramburú 1998: fig. 7a), Type 1 (Machacuay and Aramburú 1998: fig. 8a), Type 93
(Machacuay and Aramburú 1998: fig. 8b and 8c), and Type 17 (Machacuay and Aramburú 1998:
fig. 9a).
In Huaca Huallamarca late burials were found from the Late Intermediate Period. Some of the
associated vessels were classified by Camilo Dolorier and Lydia Casas into six styles: “Hualla or
Incised Punctuate”, “Orange Ornamental Ichma”, “Angled”, “Dripped Cream”, Black over
Cream”, “Pale Yellow”, “Ordinary Ichma” and “Polished Black” (Dolorier y Casas 2008:27).
814
There are no vessels from the area of investigation that could be related with the “Incised
Punctuate”, although some of the shapes resemble the pot Type 45 (Dolorier y Casas 2008: fig.
1B). The “Orange Ornamental Ichma” was discussed in the section of Three-color Geometric
style.
The “Angled” style was defined by the presence of a globular or angled body, angled neck and
conical application. There are several coincidences in the shapes: Pot Type 3 (Dolorier y Casas
2008: fig. 3B), Pot Type 36 (Dolorier y Casas 2008: fig. 3A), Pot Type 88 (Dolorier y Casas
2008: fig. 3C) and Pot 54, although without the painted decoration (Dolorier y Casas 2008: fig.
4C).
In the “Ordinary Ichma” style there are vessels like Pot Type 38 and Pot Type 39 (Dolorier
y Casas 2008: fig. 5). The authors considered them as Early Ychsma, although they did not
explain clearly why. Some vessels with pedestals seem to be Middle Ychsma.
In Huaca Santa Cruz, located in the Huatica Channel Valley, 6 km SE from the area of
investigation, Late Horizon intrusive burials were found in a Late Intermediate Period small
pyramid. Among the pottery associated with those burials, there are one reduced vessel with the
representation of a sitting person scratching the sole of one foot, similar to MT-3586 (Cornejo
2004: fig. 11), vessels with the decorative element Type 5, “serpent in relief” (Cornejo 2004: fig.
20, fig. 22, fig. 23), Pot Type 82 (Cornejo 2004 fig. 23), Pot Type 71 (Cornejo 2004: Type 22)
and Pot Type 85 (Cornejo 2004: fig. 25). In the site there are also vessels of the Inca, Chincha,
Chimú, Chanca, and Lambayeque styles from different regions of Peru (Cornejo 2004).
In Huaca Pucllana, in the Huatica Channel Valley, Alfred Kroeber found a sherd of Ychsma
rim Type 42 (Kroeber 1954: fig. 75).
815
In Armatambo, a huge monumental archaeological site located 14 km SE of the area of
investigation in the Surco Channel Valley, the investigations defined the presence of four wares:
A, B, C and D (Díaz y Vallejo 2002:58-59). Ware A seems to be similar to the ware Ychsma 2
and Ychsma 3, ware B to Ychsma 1, C to Ychsma 2. D is a particular ware of this site because it
contains rocky particles from the nearby “Solar Headland”. The burials found in the site have
close resemblances with some vessels from the area of investigation: pots Type 21 (Díaz and
Vallejo 2002:54-V.2, 55-V9, 55-v6, Fig. 7 sup.), Type 47 (Díaz y Vallejo 2002:54-V.1), Type 43
(Díaz and Vallejo 2002:58-V4, Fig. 3), Type 55 (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:55-V8), and Type 108
(Díaz and Vallejo 2002: Fig. 7). There are also in this site the following rims: Rim Type 35 or
shape 6 of Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:61), Rim Type 35 or shapes 6, 7 and 15 from
Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:61, 63), Rim Type 39 or shape 11 from Armatambo (Díaz
and Vallejo 2002:62), Rim Type 15 or shape 14 from Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:63),
Rim Type 43 or shape 16 from Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:63). Rim Type 5 with the
shape 19 from Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:65), Type 52 with the shape 22 from
Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:65), Type 42 with the shape 25 from Armatambo (Díaz and
Vallejo 2002:66), Type 35 with the shape 6 from Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:61), and
Type 47 with the shape 38 from Armatambo (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:69). There are also certain
similarities between the rims Type 5 and Type 7 with the shape 18 from Armatambo (Díaz and
Vallejo 2002:64), although in the specimens from the area of investigation there is no incised
decoration on the neck. The authors argued that the analyzed pottery collection from Armatambo
belongs to the “Middle Ichma” (Middle Ychsma) phase (Díaz and Vallejo 2002:61).
In a study of Middle Ychsma pottery from Armatambo, Iván Falconí made another
classification of rims, some of them pretty similar to the collections analyzed from the area of
816
investigation: Type 5 (Falconí 2008: fig. 3a), Type 10 (Falconí 2008: fig. 11 a-b), Type 15
(Falconí 2008: fig. 15c, 17, 59 a-b), Type 31 (Falconí 2008: fig. 41a), Type 33 (Falconí 2008: fig.
16b), Type 32 (Falconí 2008: fig. 18c, 21b), Type 39 (Falconí 2008: fig. 28), Type 42 (Falconí
2008: fig. 3c), Type 47 (Falconí 2008: fig.36b, 37, 54b, 54d-f), Type 53, and Type 39 (Falconí
2008: fig.56 a-b).
Jane Feltham and Peter Eeckhout analyzed the pottery discovered by them in Pyramid III of
Pachacamac in the Lurin River Valley. They defined three types of wares: one ware with large
inclusions used for making regular and big jars, and fine and common wares for making the
majority of the other vessels (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004:652). The first seems to be equivalent to
the ware Ychsma 3, the second to the ware Ychsma 1, and the last one with Ychsma 2. As in the
area of investigation, the decorative types in Pachacamac are the white paint over the natural
background of the vessels, stamped with the point of hollow canes, and modeled (Feltham y
Eeckhout 2004:654, fig. 31). Unfortunately there is not a detailed analysis of the this pottery,
although there are some similarities: like rim Type 54 (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 18c), pot
Type 32 (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 19), pot Type 34 (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 21), pot
Type 82 (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 23), pot Type 66 (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 25),
Type 108 (Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 29), and rim Type 25, called “half arrow point”
(Feltham y Eeckhout 2004: fig. 30).
Shimada et al. (2010) excavated the “Peregrines Square” sector in Pachacamac. The recovered
ceramics were found under the level of the square, in occupations from AD 900-1000 until the
arrival of the Incas around AD 1460 (Shimada et al. 2010:114).
Among the Late artifacts recovered are numerous solid human figurines (Shimada et al. 2010:
fig. 11). In a burial called 3 a vessel Jar Type 44 was found (MT-3520) (Shimada et al. 2010:
817
fig.16) in association with a pot with composite neck and conical applications (Shimada et al.
2010: fig. 17), like pots Type 88, Type 90, Type 92, from Early Ychsma B.
The excavations in the sector Cemetery 1, also in Pachacamac, detected several phases of
occupation. Phase I belongs to the Middle Horizon, Phases II and III are constructions from the
Late Intermediate Period. Phases IV and V, are new constructions of the Late Horizon Period, and
phase VII, finally, marks the abandonment of the site. There is a burial called Burial Ych05-E37,
found in layer 9 of phase I with a vessel with the code A62 (Eeckhout 2010: fig. 8) similar to the
pot Type 13. The context is considered to be from Epoch 3 of the Middle Horizon Period
(Eeckhout 2010:161), but probably should be from the Late Intermediate Period, because this
vessel belongs to the Early Ychsma B phase. Another vessel found in the same context, identified
with the code A100, is attributed to the Middle Horizon Period epochs 2B-3 (Eeckhout 2010:160),
but based on the shape and the type of decoration, it is pretty similar to Ychsma pot 112 or Jug
Type 1 that also belongs to the Early Ychsma B. A radiocarbon date associated with the cemetery
is 990±40 BP, calibrated between AD 980-1160. This radiocarbon date puts the cemetery at the
beginnings of the Late Intermediate Period.
In the excavations in the Second Wall of Pachacamac, a sequence of 73 cultural levels was
discovered. The pottery from this sector was classified in four styles: “Local Inca”, “Lurín”,
“Puerto Viejo” and “Ishmay-Pachacamac” (Ramos and Paredes 2010:118) and five wares, based
on the types of rock particles used and the type of firing: A, B, C, and D. These seem to be
equivalent to the wares Ychsma 1, Ychsma 2, and Ychsma 3, although the dimensions of the
inclusions are not described Ware E, because it is grey, could be Ychsma 6 or Ychsma 7. Ware F
seems to be equivalent to ware Ychsma 3, due to the presence of big inclusions.
818
The classification of the wares is based on the types of decorations. In the type “cream over
red” are rims equivalent to the Ychsma rims Type 5 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 16 c, e),
Type 7 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 31 h-i), Type 10 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 7a-c, 16e),
Type 12 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 10a), Type 15 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 19h), Type
18 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 7c), Type 25 (Ramos and Paredes 2010:fig. 7b-c, fig. 14e, fig.
19 d-f, fig. 30 b-i, fig.37a, fig. fig. 39 h-i ), Type 26 (Ramos and Paredes 2010:7d), Type 30
(Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 55 a-f), Type 31 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 11 a-b), Type 33
(Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 14c), Type 34 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 7f, fig. 22d, 23 e-f),
Type 35 (Ramos and Paredes 2010:fig. 7e, fig. 11h, fig. 19 b-c, fig. 35 b-f), Type 39 (Ramos and
Paredes 2010: fig. 11g), Type 42 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 16b), Type 44 (Ramos and
Paredes 2010: fig. 716 a, d, fig. 36j, fig. 57 e, h), Rim Type 45 (Ramos and Paredes 2010:fig. 7a,
fig. 13 c-g, fig. 23 b-d ), Type 47 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 9 b-d, fig. 35 ), Type 52 (Ramos
and Paredes 2010: fig. 29 f-g), Type 54 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 50 a-c, fig. 22d, 23 e-f),
Type 55 (Ramos and Paredes 2010: fig. 26f, fig. 47 c, e). ) y pedestal base (Ramos and Paredes
2010: fig. 19g, fig. 41 e-g) from the area of investigation.
In the site Pueblo Viejo-Pucara, a late settlement located in the middle valley of the Lurin
River, 35 km SE from the area of investigation, the excavations discovered pottery classified in
sixteen wares, composed of eighteen pastes, based on the presence or absence of types of
decoration (Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004:685). Again, this is another example of the
pernicious custom to divide pottery collections based on tiny differences. Based on the
descriptions, pastes A, B, I, K, J, N and P, then, seem to be equivalent to the ware Ychsma 1,
paste L equivalent to Ychsma 2, pastes C, G and Q to Ychsma 3, the pastes of Group E and F to
819
Ychsma 4 and 5, paste R to Ychsma 5, paste H to Ychsma 6 or Ychsma 7, paste M and O to
Ychsma 8, and paste D are not in the collections analyzed from the area of investigation.
Ware 5 from Pueblo Viejo-Pucara, with pastes E and F, was considered to be “highlander”,
although the specimens in this ware are equivalent to the following Ychsma types: pots Type 27
(Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004: fig. 5), Type 33 (Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004: fig. 6),
Type 83 (Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004: fig. 8b), rims Type 47 (Makowski and Vega
Centeno 2004: fig. 9 sup. left.), Type 39 (Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004: fig. 9 sup. rigth),
Type 44 (Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004: fig. 9 inf. rigth), and Type 15 (Makowski and Vega
Centeno 2004: fig. 9 inf. left.). There is also the decorative element Type 5, “serpents in relief”
(Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004: fig. 10).
In the pottery from Pachacamac discovered by Uhle, there are specimens that have similarities
with pot Type 64 with the Ychsma decoration Type 5, “serpents in relief” (Uhle 1903: fig. 85), a
mold-made feminine figurine (Uhle 1903: fig. 87), a jar with the body in the shape of a cucurbita
pretty similar to MT-3861, although without the sculptured monkey (Uhle 1903: Plate13 fig. 14).
Southward, in the Chilca River Valley, there is pottery that resembles Ychsma, especially in its
later phases. There are vessels similar to the types: Pot Type 32 and Rim Type 44 (Engel 1984:
Plate 8-P. 3979, P. 4261 y P. 3975), pots Type 103 and 108 (Engel 1984: Plate 10-P. 4288), and
rim types 33, 35, 37, and 38 (Engel 1984: Plate 11 P. 4245, P. 4250, P. 4246, P. 4284). Pottery
from this type was called “Cuculi” by Engel. It has an uncorrected date situated between AD 1300
and 1400 AD (I-1248 665±150) (Engel 1984:38, 116), but calibrated 2 Sigma between AD 1048
and 1626. There are also pots type 108, but with decoration Type 5, “serpent in relief” (Engel
1984: Plate12 P. 3226, Plate 14 P. 4537), rim Type 15 (Engel 1984: Plate 10 P. 4513, P. 3720),
rim Type 50 (Engel 1984: Plate 12 P. 4244, P. 4227) rim Type 52 (Engel 1984: Plate 12 P. 3921),
820
rims types 25, 26 y 27 (Engel 1984: Plate P. 4257, P. 3886 and P. 4273). There is also the
representation of a sitting person scratching the sole of his foot similar to MT-3586 (Engel 1984:
Plate 20: P. 3244).
The Ychsma decoration Type 11, “impressed human faces”, was found in the site Chupa
Cigarro Grande (also known now as Caral) in the Supe River Valley (Kosok 1965:223), but with
unknown chronological context in that site.
D.9) Chancay Pottery Style:
Unfortunately, there is not a sequence of the Chancay style by phases as detailed as in the
Ychsma style. Miguel Cornejo tried one, based on the sequence of burials discovered by
Horkheimer in the site Pisquillo in the Chancay River Valley, but it is very general, and it is not
very well supported due to the poor reports made by Horkheimer (Cornejo 1985).
From the collections made by Uhle in the Chancay River, there are some vessels similar to
Chancay Jar Type 2. One of the vessels illustrated by Kroeber is almost identical in shape and
decoration with MT-3839 (Kroeber 1926: Plate 80d), and jar Type 5, especially the specimen
MT-3920 (Kroeber 1926: Plate 80E).
821
8669 25
55
65
70
80 85
90 95
100 110
30
105 115
140
55
50 145
40
150
45
LL -1
35
80 LL-3
LL-2
LL-17 120 Santo
5 LL-19 Domingo
LL-22 LL -21 LL-18 120
8668
LL-4 Mother inlet
40 LL-20 Channel
135
LL-84 LL-23 LL-24 Santa
LL-5 Cuatro Rosa
LL -28 85 Bocas
LL-25 LL -26 La inlet
LL -83 LL-29 LL -11 LL -9 Tabla
LL-30 LL-27 LL-16 80 Casa
LL-31 LL-14 Palacio
LL-6 Aliaga
de
LL-8 LL -7 Gobierno
LL -32 70 LL-12
35 LL-33 65 LL -13 Catedral
50 LL-15 LL-10 LM-1 Plaza de
LL-85 55 80 Mayor Lima
LL-86 50
30
25
20 45 La Legua
LL-82 Pond 105 Partidor
LL-87 125
115 120
8667
M-1
30
10 110
70
40
LL -81 95
La 145
Magdalena
15 25
LL-38 M-2 Channel
LL-80
LL-37 M-4
LL-88 30 LL-34 M-6
20 M-3
LL -35 100
LL-60 LL-36
Rosario LL -53 LL-39
M-5 LM-2
Pond LL-55 LL-54
40 LL-59 LL-56 LL-47
LL-48 80 LL -40 150
LL -58 LL-57 LL-46 130
50
15
55 LL -61
60 65 LL -49 120
10 65 LL-41 M-7
70
25 LL -50 LM-3 LM-5 135
8666
35
LL-62 LL -63 LL-65 LM -4
45
20 35 M-8
5 LL-51 M-9 LM-6
30 LL-66 LL-52 LL-42
LL-64 LM -7
M-10 LM-8
Aguilar M-11
LL -67
Pond LL-70 M-63
M-64 LL-44LL-43 LM-9
LL-78 LL-75 LL-72 LL-68 LM-10
LL-45 135
M-116 LL-71
M- 117 LL -76 Pando M-54
10 LL-73 M-77 LL -69
M-119 M-76 Pond
M- 122 M-118 M-75 M-17 115
LL -77 LL-74 M-12 M-13
15 M-78
M-120 M-18
20 LL-89 40 M-123 LM-11
5 M-121 M-79 M-80 M-14
La Blanca M-155 M-86 LM-13
M -124 M-85 80 LM-12 110
Ponds LL-79 M-127 60 M-81 M-66
M-84
M -156 M-125 M-82
M- 126 M-154 M-83 M-15
M- 121 M -128 70 M-65 M-55
M- 132 M-133 M-67 125
M- 130 Pinilla's M-69 M-56 M-16 LM -15
5 30 M-150 M-129 M -131 M-87 100
M- 151 M-149 M- 148 60 Excavations LM -14
45 M-135 1982 M-68 M-19 M-20 LM-16
8665
M- 152 M -147 M-134 LM-17
M-143 M-142 M-89 M-21
M-135 M-88 M-57
M-146 M-144
5 20 M-160 M- 153
M-137
M-70 M-44 M-22 Cueva
M-141 M-138 M-136 M-92 M-90 LM-18
M-158 M-99 M-93 M-58 M-59 M-23 M-25 pond
M-159 M- 139 M-91 LM -19
10 M -100 M-45 M-24
M-101 M-26 LM-20
M-161 M-95 M-27 M-30
M-140 M-94 70
50 M-46 M-47
278
M-29
279
25 M-104 M- 105 M-96 M-71 M-32
15 35 M-162 M-102 M-60 M-28
M-157 M-48 M-31
M-33 M-34
M- 103 M-35
M-172 M -106 M-107
M-110 M-97 M-62 M-36
M-108 M-72 M-51
20 25 40 M-73 M-61 M-37
50 M-109 M-50 LM-21
M-170 M- 112 Maranga M-38 La
M-168 M-111 Pond M-98 Magdalena
M-40 M-39
M-171 Channel
M-169 M-74
M-113
80 M-53 M-41 M-42
35 M-43
5 M- 114 65
LM-55 M-52 85
40 LM-38
M- 115 LM-56
30 100
LM- 29 LM-22
8664
M-163 LM-57
LM-58 LM-39
45 LM- 59
40 LM-41 LM -40 LM - 30
LM-60 La
Pacific
LM-61
LM- 42 LM-43 Magdalena
LM-44
Channel
LM -63
LM -62
LM -45 LM -46
LM- 64 LM-47 LM- 23
40 LM-66 LM -65 LM -33
45 55 LM-48 LM -32 LM-24
LM-31
M-167 M-164 LM-67
LM -49 LM -34 LM-25
LM -50
LM-26
M-166 LM-27
LM -68
La LM-35 LM-28
60 Magdalena LM-36
M-165 80
Ocean
LM-69 San Jose Channel LM-51
40
Pond
LM -70
LM-71
LM -37
45 50 LM -72
8663
LM-52
LM-73
LM-77 55 LM-74
LM-53
LM-75
60
LM-76
LM-54
55
8662 60
65
80
80
86615 km S
80
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
N
1 km 0 1 km
Map 5-1: Area of Investigation: The La Magdalena, Maranga and

La Legua channel valleys and Archaeological sites.
N 8669
25
30
35
8668
LL-84
Pacific
LL-83
Ocean
35
LL-85
30
25
20 LL-86 LL-82
LL-87
8667 10
30
LL-81
15 25
LL-80
LL-88 30
20
40
15
10
25 35
8666 5
20 35
30
10
La Blanca
15
Ponds
20 LL-89
5
LL-79
5 30
866500 Km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
1 km 0 1 km
Map 5-2: Area of Investigation. Detail of the NW section

N 8665 5
10
20
M-161
M-162
25 35
15
M-172 M-170
20 25
M-168
M-171
M-169 35
5
30
8664
Pacific
Ocean
8663
8662
86615 km S
2635 km E 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
1 km 0 1 km
Map 5-3: Area of Investigation. Detail of the SW section

N 8665 M-160
M-159
M-158
M-153
M-99
M-100 M-101
M-137
M-141 M-138 M-136
M-139
M-93
M-92 M-90
M-91
M-70
M-58 M-59
M-44
M-45
M-23
M-24
M-22
M-25
M-26
Cueva
Pond
LM-18
LM-19
M-95 M-27 M-30 LM-20
M-140 M-94 70 M-46
50 M-47 M-32 M-29
M-104 M-105 M-96 M-71 M-60 M-28
M-162 M-157 M-102 M-48 M-31
M-33 M-34
M-103 M-106 M-107 M-110 M-97 M-72 M-62 M-51 M-49 M -35
M-36
40 M-108 Maranga M-73 M-61 M-37
50 M-109 M-50
M-112 Pond M-38 LM-21
M-98 La Magdalena
M-111 M-40 M-39 Channel
M-74 80 M-53 M-41
M-113 M-42
LM-55 85
M-114 65 LM -38 M-52 M-43
40
M-115 LM-56 LM-22 100
M-163 LM-29
LM-57LM-58
LM-39
8664 40
45
LM-60
LM-59
LM-41 LM-40 LM-30 La Magdalena
LM-62 Channel
LM-61 LM-42 LM-43
LM-63 LM-44
Huatica Channel
LM-45 LM-46 LM-31
LM-66 LM-47 LM-23
40
45 LM-65 LM-64 LM-33
55 LM-48 LM-32 LM-24
M-167 M-164 La Magdalena LM-67 LM-34
LM -49 LM-50 LM-25
Valley
Channel LM-27 LM-26
M-166 LM-68
LM-35 LM-28
60 La Magdalena
M-165 LM-69 80 LM-36
LM-51 Channel
40 San Jose
LM-70 Pond
LM-71
45 50 LM-72 LM-37
8663 LM-74
LM-73 LM-52
LM-77 55
LM-53
LM-75 60
LM-76
Pacific 55
LM-54
Ocean
8662 80
65
60
80
80
86615 km S
271 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 5-4: Area of Investigation: Detail of the SE section

N 8669 80 85
70 90 95
65
55
100 110
105 115
55
50
40
45
LL-1
80 LL-3
LL-2
120
LL-17
LL-19 LL-18
LL-22 LL-21 120
8668 40 LL-20
LL-4
La Legua
LL-23 LL-24
LL-5 Channel
LL-28
85 La Tabla
LL-25 LL-26
LL-29 LL-11 LL-9
LL-30 LL-27 LL-16 80 Maranga
LL-31 LL-14 LL-6 Channel
La Legua LL-8 LL-7
Channel La Legua
LL-32 70 LL-12 Channel
50 LL-33 65 LL-13
LL-15 LL-10 LM-1
55 80
50 La Magdalena
45 La Legua Channel
Pond La Legua 105 Partidor
125
Channel
115 120
M-1
8667 70
110
40 Maranga
95 Channel
LL-38 M-2
LL-37 M-6 M-4
LL-34 M-3
LL-35 100
LL-60 LL-36
Rosario LL-53 LL-39 M-5 La Magdalena
LM-2
Pond LL-55 LL-54 Channel
LL-59 LL-56 LL-47
LL-48 80 LL-40
50 LL-58 LL-57 LL-46
55 LL-61
60 65 LL-49 120
65 70 LL-41 M-7
LL-50 LM-3 LM-5
8666 45
LL-62 LL-63 LL-65
LL-51
M-8
LM-4
LM-6
M-9
LL-64
LL-66 LL-52 LL-42 LM-7
Aguilar M-10 LM-8
LL-67 M-11 Maranga
Pond LL-70 M-63 LL-43
LL-72 M-64 LL-44 Channel LM-9 LM-10
LL-78 LL-75 LL-68 LL-45
M-116 LL-71
M-117 LL -76 Pando
LL-73 M-76 M-77 LL-69 M-54
M-119 Pond
M-122 M-118 M-75 M-17 115
LL-77 LL-74 M-78 M-12 M-13
M-120 M-18
M-123 M-121
M-155
M-79 M-80 M-14 LM-11 Huatica
M-86 M-85 80 Maranga LM-13 LM-12 110
M-127 M-124 60 M-81 M-66
M-156 M-125
M-84
M-82
Channel Channel Valley
M-126 M-154 M-83 M-65 M-55 M-15
M-121 M-128 M-132 M-133 M-67
70
M-150 M-129 M-130 M-131 M-87 Pinilla's M-69 M-56 M-16 LM-15
100 LM-14
45 M-151 M-149 M-148 M-135 60 excavation
M-68 Maranga M-19 M-20 LM-16
M-134 1982 LM-17
M-152 M-147
86650 km S M-143 M-142 M-89 Channel
M-135 M-88
M-146 M-144
M-57
2710 km E 272 273 274 275 276 277
1 km 0 1 km
Map 5-5: Area of Investigation. Detail of the NE section

N 8669
140
145
150
Santo
Common Domingo
Channel inlet
8668 135 Santa
Rosa
Cuatro Bocas
inlet
Aliaga Goverment
House Palace
La Magdalena
Channel
Main
Square Lima's
Cathedral
8667
145
Huatica Channel
Valley 130
150
135
8666
135
125
86650 km S
2770 km E 278 279
1 km 0 1 km
Map 5-6: Area of Investigation: Detail of the E section.

Ucalgary 2013 Narvaez Jose

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

Ucalgary 2013 Narvaez Jose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Pre-colonial Irrigation and Settlement Patterns in

José Joaquín Narváez Luna

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

© José Joaquín Narváez Luna 2013

generated by three main irrigation channels named La Magdalena, Maranga, and La

organization of the indigenous population in the late Precolonial period.

final redaction of the thesis.

Arellano Hoffmann directors of the National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology,

archeologists Elba Manrique, Maritza Pérez, and Víctor Hugo Farfán.

In the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of San Marcos University, the

In the School of Archaeology at San Marcos University, its director archeologist

helped with the analysis of those collections.

pictures of the several archeological buildings located inside the Park.

explained in Chapter 7, it is from the Early Colonial Period.

List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclatures………………………………..…xxxv

CHAPTER 2: The study Area and Environmental Setting……………………..…...14

CHAPTER 3: Previous Archaeological and Ethnohistorical studies in the valleys of

La Magdalena, La Legua and Maranga……………………………………………….18

CHAPTER 4: The Research……………………………..……………………………..49

4.1 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………49

4.2 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………….60

4.4 Research Methodology……………………………………………………………….63

CHAPTER 5: The Artificial Valleys of La Legua, La Magdalena and Maranga…..72

5.1 Mapping the Area of Investigation…………………………………………………...72

5.2 The Common Channel Valley………………………………………………………..76

5.3 The La Magdalena Channel Valley…………………………………………………..77

5.5 The La Legua Channel Valley………………………………………………………193

5.6 A General View of the Area of Investigation……………………………………….246

CHAPTER 6: Pottery Analysis……………………………………………………….253

6.1 Objectives and Method of Investigation……………………………………………253

6.3 The Ancon Pottery Style……………………………………………………………256

6.4 The Topara Pottery Style……………………………………………………………257

6.5 The Lima Pottery Style……………………………………………………………...258

6.6 The Nieveria Pottery Style………………………………………………………….259

6.7 The Wari pottery styles…………………………………………………….……….260

6.8 The Pativilca Pottery Style………………………………………………………….261

6.9 The Three-color Geometric Pottery Style…………………………………………..261

6.10 The Ychsma Pottery Style…………………………………………………..……..262

6.11 The Chancay Pottery Style………..……………………………………………….263

6.12 The Inca Pottery Style…………..…………………………………………………263

CHAPTER 7: The Colonial Period Documental Information……………………...265

7.1 Objectives and Method of Investigation……………………………………………265

7.3 The Rimac River Valley…………………………………………………………….269

7.4 The Irrigation Channels……………………………………………………………..274

7.10 Wrong Information………………………………………………………..……….326

CHAPTER 8: Reconstruction of the Occupation Sequence and Settlement

8.1 The Preceramic Period……………………………………………………………...344

8.2 The Ancon Occupation……………………………………………………………...344

8.3 The Topara Occupation……………………………………………………………..352

8.4 The Lima Occupation……………………………………………………………….355

8.5 The Wari Occupation……………………………………………………………….364

8.6 The Ychsma Occupation……………………………………………………………372

8.7 The Inca Occupation………………………………………………………………..374

Appendix A: Pottery Typology……………………………………………………….496

A.1 Ancon Pottery Style………………………………………………………………...496

A.1.1 Ware Types……………………………………………………………………….496

A.1.2 Morphological Types……………………………………………………………..497

A.1.3 Decorative Types…………………………………………………………………500

A.2 Topara Pottery Style………………………………………………………………..500