Shibata Ver2 2

CHRONOLOGY (working draft ver.2.2.
- Dec/2006) Koichiro Shibata
Dear professors and colleagues:
Here is my first draft. Apologies for delayed posting and awkwardly broken english
writing(not corrected by native speakers yet, as you’ll notice). Any suggestion or
comment is welcome of course, particularly on my comparative interpretations of
specific sites, phases, styles, etc. about which you’ve published elsewhere. I consider
this is a working draft and put some tentative descriptions for expected discussions on
the web page. Several figures are to be modified or added later (e.g. cross sections,
architectural plans, ceramic drawings, etc.). In regard to the photos and/or drawings of
friezes (of Huaca Partida), I haven’t made up my mind yet whether to present in this
paper or not.
Cordially yours,
Koichiro Shibata (huacapartida@yahoo.co.jp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Chronological Pillar Looming Up:
Formative Period in the Lower Nepeña Valley
and Its Implication for the Chavín Problem
or
Formative Chronology of the Lower Nepeña Valley
and Its Implication for the Chavín Problem
Koichiro Shibata1
The North-Central Coast, particularly Nepeña and Casma Valleys, is currently

converting into a focus of intensive researches on the Formative Period2. Indeed, their
relatively better site conservation, concentration of diagnostic sites, and geographic
location at the center of North Coast, Central Coast and Callejón de Huaylas and
Chavín de Huántar suggest a strategically noteworthy condition for studies on this
period. Future collaboration and discussion among those researchers are expected and
1 Research fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; Affiliated investigator of the
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
2 Besides the long standing and continuing investigations by Shelia and Thomas Pozorski at a series
of Formative sites on the lower Casma Valley (cf. Pozorski in this volume), the following excavations
can be mentioned: Sechín Bajo by Peter Fuchs, San Diego and Chankillo by Ivan Ghezzi (Ghezzi 2006),
Huambacho by David Chicoine (Chicoine 2006), and Cerro Blanco and Huaca Partida by the author.
1
CHRONOLOGY (working draft ver.2.2. - Dec/2006) Koichiro Shibata
will provide some meaningful contributions to the regional and general perspectives on
this time period. Meanwhile, for the present volume that endeavours to synthesise
discussions from diverse regional perspectives, I introduce a preliminary chronology of
the Formative lower Nepeña Valley that will serve as a good reference for many
cross-dating interpretations and attempt to draw its implication for one of the major
topics of this period - Chavín Problem.
Before subsequent sections of this paper and for coming articles in this volume,
several clarifications about chronological frameworks must be noted here. Following
table shows a quite simplified version of comparison amongst recent and classic
Formative chronologies for the central and north part of Peru (Fig. 1). Though any
regional diversity is omitted in this chart, at least it will be possible to avoid
terminological misreadings and to grasp each archaeologist’s emphasis on stylistic
and/or socio-cultural changes. Even without the earliest and latest phases as
Kotosh=Mito and Salinar, which are treated slight differently in a few frameworks, a
notable advance on chronological studies is noticed by three to four phases recognized
and divided in the recent studies3.
Lanning 1967
Dates
Site, Phase, Style
B.C. Kaulicke Lumbreras Burger
Onuki 2001 Elera 1997 Rowe 1967 and/or
1994 1989 1992
(Cal B.C.) Key Words
Willey 1971
250-50
Final Late Epi- Early
Salinar, White on Red
Formative Formative Formative Intermediate
(150-A.D.50)
Upper
Formative
500-250 Early
Final Kuntur Wasi=CP phase,
Coastal Crisis
Formative Horizon Janabarriu (Burger 1992)

(450-150)
Late Late-Middle
Formative Formative
800-500
Late
Early Horizon Kuntur Wasi=KW phase
(850-450)
Formative
Middle
Formative
1200-800
Middle Early-Middle Middle Kuntur Wasi=ID phase, Cardal,
(1350-850)
Formative Formative Formative Classic Cupisnique (Elera 1997)
Initial
Period
1800-1200
Early Early Early Lower Early Huacaloma,
Initial Period
Formative Formative Formative Formative Pampa de las Llamas
(2100-1350)
2500-1800 Mito tradition (Bonnier 1997),

Initial Late Proto- Late Late
Late Archaic North Central Coast tradition
Formative Archaic Formative Preceramic Preceramic
(3000-2100) (Vega-Centeno 2006)
Fig. 1: Aprroximate correspondences among major chronological schemes.
3Note that even in some simply divided frames as Burger’s one, many subdivisions marked by others
were clearly recognized (see Burger 1992).
2
In this paper, the chronological terminology from Onuki’s framework will be

employed basically, and Burger’s one occasionally, because of my concerns with a
remarkable shift that could have been occured near 800 or 700 BC that was coming to
be recognized and argued since late 80’s as follows.
A chronological facet of Chavín Problem
With the increasing radiocarbon dates of the Formative Period, many of the
then Chavín related ‘Early Horizon’ sites are revealed to be of Pre-Chavín ‘Initial Period’
by the mid 80s (cf. Burger 1981; Donnan ed. 1985). This historical collapse of the clasic
Chavín Horizon concept derivative from Tello (Tello 1943; 1960), however, still left a
certain number of sites being much probably contemporaneous with Chavín de Huántar.
It will not be so audacious to speculate this was a circumstance in which were able to
appear several renewed Horizon hypotheses as those by Burger (Burger 1992; 1993) and
Pozorski (S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1987). Emphasizing the coastal Cupisnique
culture was another tide since 90s, often referred tying up with Larco’s idea of coastal
origin of Chavín (Larco 1938; 1941). Amongst them are important the works of Elera
(Elera 1993; 1997; 1998; Elera et al. 1992) and of Onuki (Onuki 1993; 2001; Onuki ed.
1995).
These post-80s hypotheses, some of which are involved in a renewed and
somewhat silent polemic so-called ‘Chavín Problem’, have two common points in certain
respects despite the difference on their theoretical backgrounds and regions they
researched. First, these all deal with changes between two periods, Middle and Late
Formative Periods, or Initial Period and Early Horizon, roughly paralleld with each
other (Fig. 1). Second point is that the most prominent change occured on the coastal
region, as easily observed in the settlement pattern for instance.
Here the problem is a basic and crucial one noticed by, I wish, most
archaeologists specialized in this time period but left unsolved still now: there is not any
well established chronology of Formative Period on the coast. It would not be so fair to
criticize researchers for this, since, besides the possible discourse that each country or
academic environment has its proper condition to valorize archaeological works, a
backdrop endemic to the coastal Formative sites did not permit them addressing such
chronological issues head-on. That is, there had been registered very few, if any,
monumental Formative sites with superimposed architectural evidences embracing
3
many phases, two of which should be Middle and Later Formative just as Kuntur Wasi,
Huacaloma or Kotosh for instance, that would easily allow researchers to identify
material caracteristics to each phase. In fact, there was not any excavated site bearing
such condition on the coast and thus any available information equivalent to the
referred highland cases. This is a circunstance to be break, just as Kaulicke pointed out
many years ago (Kaulicke 1992: 33-35; 1998: 364).
Thus, one of the reasons why I started investigations in the Nepeña Valley,
Cerro Blanco in particular, was Tello’s description about stratigraphically three-tiered
structures with Formative suggestive charasteristics, earliest of which just
corresponded to the famous polychromed temple partially destroyed and buried by
possible flood-related layer (Tello 1942: 114-115; 1943: 136-137). In 2001, I supposed
that the flood, if true, had something to do with the beginning of so-called Coastal Blank
(Onuki 1993) or Coastal Crisis (Burger 1992), so separating the architectures of Middle
and Late Formative Periods. In brief, Cerro Blanco appeared to have an ideal condition
for challenging to the mentioned issue.
Fig. 2: Map of the lower Nepeña Valley area showing the location of Cerro Blanco, Huaca Partida, and
other Formative Period sites.
4
Cerro Blanco and its chronology
The archaeological site of Cerro Blanco is located at 145 m above the sea level,
on the right bank of the Nepeña river, some 18 km inland from the coastline (Fig. 2).
Cerro Blanco is the largest monumental site of the Formative Period on the lower
Nepeña Valley 4 and includes three artificial mounds with possible central plaza
forming so-called U-shaped configration5 (Fig. 3). The major volume mound, which we
named Principal Platform, is composed of two superimposed rectangular platforms. The
lower platform measures 105 x 75 m, the upper one occupies the west half of the former,
and the total height reaches 14 m from the current cultivation surface. South Platform,
that witnessed the occasional discovery of polychromed low relieves in 1928 by Harrison
and subsequent scientific excavations conduced by Tello in 1933 and 1934 (Bischof 1997;
Museo de Arqueología y Antopología de San Marcos ed. 2006), has a triangular
appearance possibly altered by modern road and irrigation canal. This mound measures
85 x 65 m and 4 m in height, separated from the Principal Platform by the mentioned
road. The lowest of all is the North Platform whose exposed area extends aproximately
70 x 25 m. Present appearance of all these platforms is a consequence of successive
construction activities during the Formative Period, possibly ceased in the Late
Formative but reutilized from Moche downward.
Our moderate-scale excavations at Cerro Blanco in 2002 (7 weeks) and 2004
(10 weeks), have permitted to grasp a large part of Formative sequence. Each
excavation unit measures 5 x 2 m, many of which were interconnected, and a total area
of more than 50 units has been excavated so far. More than 4,800 ceramic sherds of 2002
season have been analysed6. The detailed information about ceramic analysis is to be
published elsewhere, but several noteworthy results will be presented here.
4 I define the lower Nepeña Valley as an area from the narrowest point near San Jacinto downward,
thus including the lower valley and the lower half of middle valley of Proulx’s definition (Proulx 1985:
map 2)
5 Bischof’s article made first mention of this configration of the site (Bischof 1997: ).
6 This analysis has done by author mainly in order to get ceramic sequence, following basically the
same method of well established chronologies at Kotosh (Izumi and Terada eds. 1972), La Pampa
(Terada and Kato 1977; Terada ed. 1979), Huacaloma (Terada and Onuki eds. 1982; 1985) and Kuntur
Wasi (Inokuchi 1998; Onuki ed. 1995). Another kind of analysis has been realized by Hugo Ikehara on
the relatively well preserved ceramic sherds, more than 4,300 samples in all, recovered in 2002 and
2004 from BR-1 at North Platform, about which is to be published elsewhere (Ikehara and Shibata
n.d.).
5
Fig. 3: Plan of the site of Cerro Blanco (**PROVISIONAL**)
Huambocayan Phase7
First explicit evidences of human occupation at Cerro Blanco is a hearth on an
‘apisonado’ stratum immediately above the natural sand layer. A carbon sample from
the hearth measured 3140±60 BP (TKa-13227). Any other architectural element like
wall is not discovered so far. In and near the hearth were found few ceramic fragments,
some of which show slightly elongated punctations (Fig. XXX). The only identified
vessel form is Neckless olla, whose rim is thickened out into interior. Traces of
Huambocayan phase were detected in the area near the east façade of Principal
Platform where excavation units reached to the possible ‘sterile’ layer.
7 This denomination is derived from ‘Wampukayan’, another site name of Cerro Blanco preferred by
Mejía Xesspe (Museo de Arqueología y Antropología de San Marcos ed. 2006). Its quechua etymology
may be ‘platform or patio where ships are kept’ or simply ‘pier’ (Cerrón-Palomino personal
communication 2006). Other phase names are from toponyms of the lower Nepeña Valley.
6
Fig. 4: Ceramics of
Huambocayan Phase
Cerro Blanco Phase

Evidences of the first monumental arquitecture at the site appear, and at least
two constrcution sub-phases were observed in all of three platforms.
Principal Platform
Conical adobes were employed for the retaining walls of Principal Platform
that had 70 m in north-south width and at least 1 m in height. In addition to adobes,
small quarried stones were used for the following architectual modifications during the
same phase. Fills of the platform were boulders and mud in all sub-phases. Few ceramic
samples were recovered from layers between these sub-phases, that is, relatively secure
context in comparison with layers which covered the floor of last sub-phase and
prepared foundations for the following megalithic arquitecture. Among such sherds is a
group characterized by zoned graphite and red slipped surface on a relatively fragile red
thin paste with some distinguishable white tempers, that we call Red Graphited type.
North Platform
After buring some structure of conical adobes, a long platform of small quarried
stones was built. Its south side adjacent to the possible Central Plaza had an
entrance-like rectangular open precinct ‘BR-1’ of 6 m in north-south long and 2 m in
east-west width. In this modest size space, multiple thin layers with many ashes and
burned soils containing extraordinary density of materials were found. Noticeable are
several fine ceramic sherds as Fine Gray type consisted of very compact paste without
any felsper occasionally showing fine line incisions as wel as mentioned Red Graphited
sherds. In these cases, dominant vessel form is bottle. Bone and lithic objects including
obsidian flakes, animal bones and shellfishes were also found amongst others, some of
7
which show burned trace. It appears that BR-1 of North Platform had a function
concerning the activities of feasting possibly held at the Central Plaza (Ikehara and
Shibata n.d.). A charcoal sample from burned lensed-layer yields 2680±40 BP
(TKa-13564).
South Platform
Undoubtedly, the fame of Cerro Blanco derives from the architecture of
polychromed low reliefs that Tello’s expedition investigated seven decades ago (Tello
1942; 1943; Museo de Arqueología y Antropología de San Marcos ed. 2006; cf. Bischof
1997; Daggett 1987; Vega-Centeno 2000), and that many archaeologist cited as an
instance of Chavín influence (Burger 1992; Carrión Cachot 1948; Tello 1942; 1943). For
the construction materials, small rectangular adobes and conical adobes were employed.
Though we could neither collect diagnostic sherds associated to this and subsequent
architectures nor confirm directly its stratigraphic relation with the Principal Platform
because of the modern road divided both platforms, an accidental discovery of a hearth
embedded in the floor made it possible to determine the chronological position of well
known reliefs. Located at an obscure side of the architecture8, this sturdily built hearth
has the ‘8’ shaped internal configration and its external outline is grooved into the floor
surface (Fig. XXX). No ceramic sherds was found but its internal space was filled by
ashes and charcoal grains which yielded a date of 2740±35 BP (TKa-13566). Its
chronological position is supported by another radiocarbon measurement, 2750±35 BP
(TKa-13565), of a charcoal form a post pit of the following sub-phase in which
polychromed low reliefs and mural paintings as well as conical adobes and small
quarried stones are observed (cf. Museo de Arqueología y Antropología de San Marcos
ed. 2006: 121-122, 144-151).
Nepeña Phase
Several remarkable changes from the precedent phase are noted on
architecture, ceramic types and other materials. Most prominent is the renovation at
Principal Platform, while activities at North Platform appear to be continuous with the
former phase and those at South Platform remain hardly known.
Principal Platform
The low platform built of conical adobes basically and of small quarried stones
8 In the case of Bischof’s plan, the hearth can be added at the counter part of the room 5, that is, east
side of the room 4 (Bischof 1997: Fig. 16).
8
in several parts were totaly covered with small stones and mud. These fills were
retained temporarily by a roughly piled stone wall like pirca (AM-306), then an
arquitecture of literally monumental volume was erected (Fig. XXX). The associated
floor of its contention walls had a level raised 1.4 m up from the earlier one, fact that
suggests a considerable labor investment or parhaps some natural condition as debris
brought by flash floods passed near the site, which could facilitate the transportation of
filling materials. No concrete evidence of the destruction by any flood has been
confirmed yet, but traces of high precipitation as aqueous very thin silt strata observed
at a few sections under the megalithic Principal Platform, as well as results of
malacological analysis (Víctor Vásquez, personal communication 2006), are suggestive
data for further investigations.
In any case, the brandnew massive architecture was substantially distinct
from earlier ones. In place of
adobes and small quarried stones,
enormous cut stones, some of
which exceed 1 m in width, were
employed for retaining walls. The
main platform had at least
two-tired terraced configration, on
the west part of which a rather
small one - Upper Platform - was
situated. Access to the top of
terraced platform and then to the
Upper Platform was through Fig. 5: Staircase of the Upper Platform, Nepeña
staircases set into the central part Phase of Cerro Blanco.
of eastern façade of each platform. First one which we named ‘Red and White Staircase’
measures 10 m in width and shows conserved plaster painted in dualistic manner (Fig.
XXX). Second one connecting the terraced platform and the Upper Platform is quite
narrow, 1.5 m in width, showing ‘L’ shaped plan. Several monolithic long stones found in
the surface layers slightly east of the well conserved entrance suggest that the staircase
was once roofed or at least had a lintel (Fig. XXX). Stonework of the steps and walls
near these staircases is in general more elaborated than other area of the architecture,
and in the case of ‘Red and White Staircase’ is notable the presence of wedge-like small
stones between large well cut stones, namely pachilla technique.
As regards ceramic evidences, a very few sherds were collected from relatively
secure context as floor surface, however much more samples from layers under the floor,
9
which include the same type ceramics as those on the floor, indicate that the new type
ceramic could have been used and discarded during the construction process,
phenomenon that was repeated simultaneously at Huaca Partida 9 . Prominent
characteristics among ceramic decorations are broad line incision often combined with
large punctation, graphite painting on the whole surface, rocker stamping, and
circle-dot stamping. A few sherds of Red on Orange type characterized by red line
painting on orange to beige surface with well fired greyish paste were collected too. As a
morphological feature of coarse wares, it can be posed that slantingly cut rim of the
neckless jar comes to appear but not dominantly (Fig. XXX). Obsidian flakes derives
exclusively from layers of this phase, at the north-eastern corner of the platform
particularly.
Samanco Phase10
Any explicit evidence of architecture proper to this phase has not been detected
at the site11. The main access of the megalithic terraced platform, namely Red and
White staircase, was seald
with roughly piled stone walls
at the first step and the
possible last step where these
sealing walls connected to the
retaining walls of terraced
platform.
Materials of the
Samanco Phase are from some
lower layers covering the
megalithic architecture and its
floor. It was rather difficult to
distinguish stratigraphically
the artifacts of this phase from
that of the preceding Nepeña
Phase, for there was neither Fig. 6: Ceramics of Samanco Phase
9 This hypothesis is also reinforced by the same ceramic assemblage recovered from the Nepeña Phase
context at BR-1 where a series of radiocarbon measurements is accompanied.
10 **Parhaps I will change Samanco to Huambacho as the phase name.**
11 Because of the high density of burials corresponding to the later occupations as so-called Casma
Culture, we had to avoid excavation on the top of the Principal and Upper Platforms where some
structure of Samanco Phase could have been encountered.
10
wall or floor, nor any clear-cut soil differences in many areas, that would serve to easily
separate layers containing materials of both phases. Despite such stratigraphical
obstacles, that could occur in similar cases at other sites, several conditions helped us to
identify the material characteristics of this phase. For example, while there is a close
typological continuity between below/on the floor mentioned for the Nepeña Phase, a
certain difference from the following upper layers is noticed, as a striking drop in
number of polished black wares as well as sherds with decorations in general. Overall,
some statiscal presentation will be essential for the determinant analysis, but for the
moment as useful chronological markers it can be noted that the slantingly cut rim on
neckless jars and the everted or strongly everted rim on short-necked jars are almost
dominant form, much more frequently found than from the Nepeña Phase (Fig. XXX).
Few circle-dot or circle-dots decoration are present. Panpipes are also quite notable in
this context (Fig. XXX).
2290±35 BP (TKa-13227) is the radiocarbon measurement of charcoal sample
from shellfish concentration in the thick layer covering the floor of megalithic
architecture.
Additional evidences from Huaca Partida
Huaca Partida was

an almost unknown
archaeological site before our
excavations. A few works had
mentioned the site12, and the
only archaeologist who left
somewhat systematic
description visiting the site
was Proulx (Proulx 1973:
152-153; 1985: 113-115). The
site is located at 130 m above
Fig. 7: Huaca Partida (**PROVISIONAL**)
the sea level on the left bank of
Nepeña river, only 2.1 km from the site of Cerro Blanco, and both sites are barely visible
12 Tello’s expedition was probably the first visitor among archaeologists (Tello 1943: 138; Museo de
Arqueología y Antropología de San Marcos ed. 2006: 116-117). The site is rarely called Sute Bajo
(Gambini1984: 113) but this name will cause a confusion after the discovery of probable Salinar
related sites at the foot of Cerro Sute Bajo (Cotrina et al. 2003).
11
from the top of each other even before reaping tall sugar canes. Huaca Partida is the
second largest Formative Period mound known in the lower part of valley, measuring
approximately 50 x 60 m and 10 m in height (Fig. XXX), size that roughly corresponds to
the megalithic architecture of Nepeña Phase. Any lateral mound as those of Cerro
Blanco appears to be absent.
Our fieldwork at this site was got started in 2004 on pupose to complement the
Formative chronology of the lower Nepeña Valley and to undertake an investigation
concerning the relationship between vicinal and probably contemporaneous ceremonial
centers in this period. So far were carried out 2 seasons of excavations, 2004 (3 weeks)
and 2005 (7 weeks), revealing the importance of the site beyond our aims and
expectations. At least three main phases of construction and occupation could be
identified - Cerro Blanco, Nepeña and Samanco Phases. Regarding ceramics, only some
3,100 sherds of 2005 season have been analysed.
Cerro Blanco Phase

Underneath the now visible greater mound surface, a modest size but
spectacularly adorned architecture was partly discovered. The height was no less than 9
m, and the north-south width would be near 25 m while the east-west length is left
almost undetermined. On its central area, two rectangular chambers and, between
them, an atrium with 8 columns in 2 rows were placed in a symmetrical arrangement.
Main construction materials were small quarried stones and trapeziform adobes.
Columns of the eastern row had tricolor painting on its east side. North and east walls
of the north chamber and south and east walls of the south chamber also showed
polychrome paintings on their exterior side. One of the principal motifs in these friezes
was a winged anthropomorphic figure. Several kennings as feet/heads or teeth/bones
conversion are present (Fig. XXX). These chromatic structures stood on the top of at
least two-tiered terraced platform whose upper retaining wall was decorated with
unbaked clay sculptures of mythical felines.
No diagnostic ceramic was collected, but two radiocarbon measurements are
available. A charcoal sample from a small burned area on the floor to the rear of the
atrium yields 2715±35 BP (TKa-13582), and the second date of 2725±30 BP (TKa-13881)
is of plant-fiber remains mingled in large quantities with a clayey groundwork layer of
the south wall painting of the south chamber, both well according with the dating of
polychromed friezes at Cerro Blanco.
Nepeña Phase and Samanco Phase
12
Just as the site of Cerro Blanco, people buried the main architecture of the
Cerro Blanco Phase upon which a megalithic terraced platform was founded. Some
ritual activity with burned offerings appeared to
be conducted occasionally during the
construction process. A date of 2700±30 BP
(TKa-xxxxx) came from one of these ashy
deposit and announced the beginning of Nepeña
Phase. A group of ceramic sherds left on the
burned areas in the sandy fillings of the
megalithic platform, as well as several sherds
from other filling layers, show close similarities
Fig. 8: Red on Orange ware, Nepeña Phase
with the ceramic assemblage of Nepeña Phase
at Cerro Blanco. Amongst them, Red on Orange type stands out (Fig. XXX). Although
materials from filling layers are usually related with the preceding construction, the
mentioned ritual context as well as sherds from filling
layers of subsequent megalithic sub-phases makes its
chronological position plausible.
Turning to the architectural record, several
characteristics will be quite worthy to note. The two
chamber of Cerro Blanco Phase were remodeled as
follows. The east and west walls were thickened about
1 m inward. In the west added wall, a small opening
and a narrow duct were prepared and joined to a
small vent perforated at a higher part of the old wall
Fig. 9: Neckless jar, Samanco Phase
opposite to the entrance of chamber (Fig.XXXa). The
subterranean duct runned toward east through the fills of megalithic platform
(Fig.XXXb), then possibly reached a larger opening of the western megalithic retaining
wall (Fig.XXXc). The chamber was roofed with slightly corbelled vault (Fig.XXXd), and
a monilithic lintel was placed at the entrance of chamber.
As regards the posttemple Samanco Phase, a ceramic assemblage quite
resemblant to that of Cerro Blanco site was recovered.
Chronological sequence of the lower Nepeña Valley:

comparison and implication
13
From these excavations, is now looming up a chronological pillar whereby

many cross-dating analyses will be able to attempt. In place of some conclusion, here I
put a tentative scheme as a peg for discussions (see also Fig. XXX).
Huambocayan Phase is recognizable only in the lowest layers of Cerro Blanco

as a few sherds akin to the dominant ceramic group of ‘Initial Period’ component at Las
Haldas and of the Haldas Phase at Sechín Alto in detail (S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski
1987: Fig. 10; 2006: Fig. 7; T. Pozorski and S. Pozorski 2005: Fig. 5). Judging from a
radiocarbon measurement of Cerro Blanco and a series of evidence in the Casma Valley,
the Huambocayan Phase can be dated roughly between 1500 and 1000 B.C.(1700-1100
cal B.C.). Up to now, any other site of the contemporaneous occupation has been
registered in the lower Nepeña Valley13. Punkurí is rather assumed to be slight earlier
(Bischof 1998: 64; Samaniego 2004). Outside the Nepeña and Casma Valleys, the site of
Templo de Tizal in the lower Chao Valley (Huapaya 1978-1979) shows ceramic
decorations shared with Huambocayan and Haldas assemblages, and its architectural
layout bears a close resembrance to that of Haldas Phase architecture at Sechín Alto14.
Cerro Blanco Phase is characterized by impressive friezes as well as manifold

regionality observed in material cultures. U-shaped configration of three platforms with
dimensional and morphological asymmetry of right and left wings at Cerro Blanco
reminds us a series of contemporaneous centers on the Central Coast15 (Williams 1978),
while the spacial arrangement at Huaca Partida that displays a symmetric layout of
two chambers and between them an atrium with decorated columns, all of which is on a
platform, has many common points to the north coastal centers as Huaca de los Reyes16
(T. Pozorski 1975). Amongst iconographic features, noteworthy are several kennings.
The continuous mouth band with teeth and fangs as a chane of bones observed in the
iconography of Chavín de Huántar (cf. Rowe 1967: 80, Figs. 6, 8-9, 15-16, 19) are pointed
by Bischof in the case of Cerro Blanco (Bischof 1997: 222-224, Figs. 19, 33) and also
discovered at Huaca Partida (Shibata and Regalado 2004; Shibata and Hernández
13 But in the middle valley area Proulx registered the site of San Juan (PV31-47) where
Huambocayan-Haldas phase occupation might exist, as suggested by a typical Haldas-like figurine
and punctated sherds (Proulx 1985: 63-66, Pls. 9c, 11b, 11c).
14 Two radiocarbon dates of Tizal, 1350±60 and 1420±70 B.C. (Huacapa 1978-1979: 132), support its
contemporaneity to the cases of Nepeña and Casma.

15 Such U-shaped configration is less clear in Casma Valley and more symmetrical in the North Coast
(cf. Shibata 2004).

16 Also Huaca Lucía (Shimada et al. 1982) and Purulén (Alva 1987) might be the case, though the
latter would be slightly earlier as well as an even earlier case of Mound of Columns at
Taukachi-Konkán in the lower Casma Valley (S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 2002).
14
2005) but no other samples are known so far (cf. Roe 1974), hence suggesting a probable
tie between the two regions to a certain extent. Another instance for Nepeña-Chavín
relationships will be a combination of winged men on the upper line and felines on the
lower one, first registered at Circular Plaza of Chavín de Huántar (Lumbreras 1977)
and then here at Huaca Partida (Shibata and Hernández 2005), but being completely
absent in other sites up to now. Dates before 700 B.C. (800 cal B.C.) are common with
both sites, as is the case of feet/heads kenning found at Huaca de los Reyes too (T.
Pozorski 1975: Fig. 37).
Ceramic and other artifacts show close connection with the North Coast.
Prominent are the Red Graphited and Fine Gray thin wares that can be recovered
frequently through the North Coast (Alva 1986; Larco 1941; T. Pozorski 1983; cf.
Lumbreras 1993: xxx; Onuki 2001) as a part of the Classic Cupisnique assemblage
(Elera 1997).
Five radiocarbon dates of the Cerro Blanco Phase at Cerro Blanco and Huaca
Partida, from the upper sub-phases specifically, range 800-730 BC; and to position
entire Cerro Blanco Phase between 1000 and 700 B.C. (1100-800 cal B.C.) will be
plausible considering also the date of preceding Huambocayan Phase.
An additional implication of these new evidences is a discussion about distinct
regional preferences above material cultures propounded by Pozorski (T. Pozorski and S.
Pozorski 1993). I am quite agreeable with them on a remarkable difference in total labor
investment in public architectures between the North Coast and the lower Casma
Valley during the Initial Period (cf. Shibata 2004). My query, however, is about the
simultaneity of Huaca de los Reyes and those incomparably massive ceremonial centers
as Sechín Alto Complex. It appears there had been a basic chronological hindrance
when they wrote it, that is, the lack of any site where could be observed some clear-cut
stratigraphical evidences of two ceramic types, as that of Haldas Phase in Casma and
that of Classic Cupisnique. But now, Classic Cupisnique ceramics proved to be
stratigraphically later17, based on our excavations at Cerro Blanco. From what I can
gather, the construction phase 1 of Huaca de los Reyes could be contemporaneous with
Haldas Phase in Casma, but not its phase 2 when a series of low reliefs in typical
Cupisnique style were completed18.
17 Very few Red Graphited sherds were recovered from Las Haldas (Grieder 1975: 105; S. Pozorski
and T. Pozorski 1987: 25). If material conditions can permit, somewhat classic ‘battleship curve’
presentation in statistical analysis may deserve to be done once for the coastal region to avoid any
frequency problem of qualitative ceramic analysis. Such problem will be repeated in the issues of later
phases.
18 Note that the all radiocarbon dates of Huaca de los Reyes are from the construction phase 1, and
that the earliest and latest dates (1730±80 B.C., 850±60 B.C.) are questioned by the researcher himself
15
Nepeña Phase can be dated to between 700 and 500 B.C. (800-450 cal B.C.)
based, for the present, on radiocarbon dates of the Cerro Blanco and Samanco Phases by
both of which Nepeña Phase is bracketed. What arised at Cerro Blanco and Huaca
Partida seems quite unique through the North, North-Central and possibly Central
Coast. First, a largest-scale ever witnessed temple renovation was carried out at both
sites, while practically all large ceremonial centers on the coastal region were
abandoned and any comparable centers were not built anew (Burger 1992: 184-190;
Onuki 1993: 92-93). Indeed, very few coastal ceremonial centers as Huaca Guavalito (T.
Pozorski 1976; 1982) can be supposed to come in this lapse, and no center was akin in
size to those abandoned (cf. Shibata 2004: Fig. 12). Second, a series of highland features
and materials, such as megalithic construction with pachilla tecnique, monolithic lintels,
corbel vault, subterranean ventilation ducts, Red on Orange wares and obsidian flakes
amongst others, were introduced and at the same time coastal traditional adobes as
material for the retaining wall were disappeared. Then again, it should be noted that
were found few, if any, ceramics possibly imported somewhere from the North Coast, for
instance Red Graphited and Fine Grey thin wares mentioned before.
Polemic will be its interpretation. Someone can presume this phase to be
evidential of Chavín influence. As for ceramics, many features shared among
contemporaneous Nepeña Phase, La Pampa Phase (Onuki and Fujii 1974; Terada ed.
1979) and Kuntur Wasi Phase (Onuki ed. 1995) for instance are able to refer19, such as
graphite painting on the whole surface of vessel, rocker stamping, circle-dot stamping
and Red on Orange ware, notwithstanding several of these are not so exclusive to this
lapse. Importantly, the renewed chronology of Chavín de Huántar by the Stanford
project just leaves its parallel lapse somewhat ambiguous and thus open to other
interpretations (Kembel 2001: 237-243; Rick 2005: 73-74). Therefore, it appears that
only by retracing the time of Chavín Horizon as earlier as 700-500 B.C. (800-450 cal
B.C.), that will result shunning Inokuchi’s critique about a chronological discrepancy
between Kuntur Wasi and Chavín (Inokuchi 1998: 173-176), the concept of Chavín
Horizon may survive. We ought to weigh this against others. In any case, however,
underlinig the homogeneity of material cultures in the Janabarriu-related phase is
more explicit than in other lapses do not appears to be so convincible.
So far as the case of Nepeña is concerned, however, I am inclining toward
different direction. While diverse coastal traits were diminished abruptly at Cerro
(T. Pozorski 1976: 114; 1982: 248).

19 Also Pallka (S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1987; Tello 1956) may be added to the list, even though this
site appears to have rather long sequence.
16
Blanco and Huaca Partida, that could be related with the lost or decay of coastal
long-distance communication network during the Coastal Crisis, newly introduced
highland features were diverse too, probably from Cajamarca region as the case of Red
on Orange short-necked jar with basically geometric motifs (Terada and Onuki eds.
1982: Pl. 87, 5, 6; 1985: Pl. 65, 3, 4; cf. Lumbreras 1993: 348) to Ayacucho region as
assumed obsidian source. Even if these artifacts were introduced through Chavín de
Huántar, they might represent an alternative network which those centers of Nepeña
established probably reinforcing some pre-existed earlier highland connection as a
result of proper decision and action of ‘nepeñano’ centers. I suppose that some agency
oriented models will be appropriate as the cases of later periods (Goldstein 2000;
Jennings 2006; cf. Burger and Matos 2002), though the assumption of Core-Periphery
relationship itself in the Formative Period should be examined apart.
Samanco Phase witnessed a remarkable change of the settlement pattern in

the whole lower Nepeña Valley. Even if the megalithic architectures at Cerro Blanco
and Huaca Partida had not been entirely abandoned, a large quantity of ceramic sherds
and organic rests as shellfishes and/or leaves in the layers accumlated around implies
that these sites were re-utilized in a different manner than what once had been. For the
moment, I interpret the Samanco Phase activities at both centres as a common
tendency observed at several ceremonial centres like Sechín Alto and Las Haldas
flourished earlier in the lower Casma Valley where monumental architectures of Haldas
Phase, that is, Huambocayan Phase in Nepeña, was disturbed and capped by “the
posttemple squatterlike occupation” characterized by, for instance, ceramic decoration
as net and textile impression (S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1987; T. Pozorski and S.
Pozorski 2005), though the possible blank between 1000 and 500 B.C. of Casma’s case is
left unsolved. Also it should be noted that a radiocarbon date of Samanco Phase and
their material characteristics indicate its contemporaneity with Huambacho (Chicoine
2006) and probably Caylán in the Nepeña Valley as well as with San Diego and Pampa
Rosario in the Casma Valley (S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1987) in which any
monumental architecture is absent and showing wholly distinct spatial organization
from preceding ceremonial centers20. It seems such shift was a common current in the
Nepeña’s neighboring valleys at least, as is shown at Las Huacas de Coishco in the
lower Santa Valley (Cárdenas 1998) whose ceramic sherds share principal features with
those of Samanco Phase and architectural elements are suggestive of Huambacho.
20 Caylán has a pyramidal mound, though it cannot compare with earlier massive architectures in the
valley.
17
An estimated lapse of Samanco Phase between 500 and 250 B.C. (450-150 cal
B.C.) go parallel with the Janabarriu Phase at Chavín de Huántar when its
monumental architecture was abandoned, only supported, or at the very least ceased to
be growing, namely temple’s decaying time 21 according to the result of recent
excavations (Kembel 2001; Rick 2005) contrastive to Burger’s hypothesis (Burger 1992;
1993). If the supposition by the Stanford team was the case, Janabarriu phenomenon
should be understood fundamentally without massive ‘traditional style’ ceremonial
centers22. The case of Atalla (Burger and Matos 2002) must be investigated confirming
whether their Janabarriu related sherds are parallel to Samanco or Nepeña Phase, and
whether they are associated with the monumental architecture or of posttemple time.
In any case, some redefinition of Janabarriu style itself will be required too.
A growing body of new evidences from the lower Nepeña valley illustrates that,
in the present state of affairs, detailed chronological studies would have a crucial role in
wrestling with several recent and long-standing issues on the Formative Period23. On
the other hand, it also propounds the necessity to construct novel models concerning
about, or at least to reexamine, the Late Formative or Early Horizon phenomena, once
being liberated from the Chavín Horizon assumption even though Burger’s model may
present the most sophisticated explanation so far.
21 But a comment of Henning Bischof emitted in the symposium that the fact people at Chavín de
Huántar had ceased renovating the temple do not itself necessarily implies that the temple was not
functioning must be considered carefully. Another intriguing opinion about Chavín’s Janabarriu Phase
is of Shinya Watanabe discussed elsewhere that there is no evidence asserting whole ceremonial center
of U-shaped configuration was abandoned but surely the Circular Plaza; Watanabe also illustrates a
case of Kuntur Wasi where its Circular Plaza of Kuntur Wasi Phase (700-450 B.C.) was buried in Copa
Phase (450-250 B.C.) while the ceremonial function of the site as well as U-shaped plan was succeeded,
thus suggesting an extinct tendency of rituals related with Circular Plazas in the later part of Late
Formative (Watanabe 2003: 159-160). I am not, however, in agreement with Watanabe’s comparison,
for Copa Phase witnessed a sizable construction activity that buried not only the Circular Plaza but
also other structures of Kuntur Wasi Phase almost entirely, evidence that is absent in the case of
Chavín de Huántar.
22 If Janabarriu paralleled lapse was of Chavín’s decline, it is intriguing that contemporaneous
further north centers such as Kuntur Wasi, Layzón (Terada and Onuki eds. 1985), and Templo El Rollo
(Wester et al. 2000) and further south centers (cf. Hastorf 2005) show monumental architectures
comparable to earlier ones, in some cases established afresh. Kembel assumes the Janabarriu phase as
a lapse in which “Local groups or families competing for power in the absence of the dominant temple
authority may have stimulated wide-ranging exchange...” (Kembel 2001: 255).
23 One of the landmark-like examples for such approach is successful researches in Huánuco (Izumi
and Sono 1963; Izumi and Terada 1972; cf. Onuki 1993) that had an explicit plan in terms of resolving
the then problems on Pre-Chavín process.
18
Dates
B.C. Cerro Blanco and Other sites in Chavín de Huántar
Casma North Coast Callejón de Huaylas
Huaca Partida Nepeña (Rick 2005)
(Cal B.C.)
250-50
VN-35 and 36
? Salinar Huaraz Huaraz
(Sute Bajo) ?
(150-A.D.50)
Chankillo
Morro de Eten?,
500-250 Huambacho, San Diego, Support phase
Samanco phase Late Puemape?, Late Capilla phase
(Janabarriu)
(450-150) Caylán Pampa Rosario, Las Huacas de
Coishco?
Huaca Desviío
700-500 Early Capilla phase,

Nepeña phase ? Pallka? Huaca Guavalito? (Chakinani)
(800-450) La Pampa phase
Casa Grande,
1000-700 Black and White
Cerro Blanco
PV31-27 & 192? ? Limoncarro, Huaricoto phase Portal phase
phase
(1100-800) (Ofrendas?)
Huaca de los
Reyes (phase 2)
Consolidation,
1500-1000 Haldas phase Templo de Tizal, Yesopampa phase
Huambocayan Expansion and
Part of PV31-47
phase Separate Mound
(1700-1100) Moxeque phase Early Puemape Toril Phase
stages?
2500-1500 Chaucayan phase,
Punkurí Cerro Sechín ? ?
(3000-1700) La Galgada
Fig. 10: Chronology of Cerro Blanco and Huaca Partida compared with neighboring regions.
Acknowledgements
Above all, I express my gratitude to Dr. Rick, Daniel, Christian and other members of
Stanford team for symposium organization and all confortable facilities afforded.
Our researches in Nepeña Valley were funded by Heiwa Nakajima Foundation (2002)
and by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (2004 and 2005), and authorized by
the Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Special thanks go to Archaeological Mission of the
Universities of Tokyo and Saitama, Specialty of Archaeology in the Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú, Municipality of Nepeña and Agroindustrias San Jacinto
S.A.A. for their logistical supports. Any success in the fieldworks was dependent on the
three co-directors Juan Ugaz, Delicia Regalado and Segundo Hernández; younger
archaeologists and students Hugo Ikehara, María Elena Tord, Marco Rivas, Gabriela
Cervantes and Lurica Hayakawa; and our friends of Nepeña, Cerro Blanco and
Capillanía. Finally, I would like to express my special gratitude to Katherine Ríos, an
19
excelent student of archaeology of PUCP who assisted in our first and most telling
season in Nepeña, contributed much to kick over this continuing project but passed
away from this world before witnessing subsequent successes.
References Cited
Alva, W. (1986) 'Cerámica temprana en el valle de Jequetepeque, Norte del Perú', in Materialien zur
Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 32. KAVA: Munich.
---(1987) 'Resultados de las excavaciones en el valle Zaña, Norte del Perú', in: W. Bauer (ed)
Archäologie in Peru-Archäometrie, pp. 61-78.
Bischof, H. (1997) 'Cerro Blanco, valle de Nepeña, Perú - un sitio del Horizonte Temprano en
emergencia', in: E. Bonnier & H. Bischof (eds) Archaeologica Peruana 2, pp. 202-234.
Mannheim: Sociedad Arqueológica Peruano-Alemana, Reiss-Museum.
---(1998) 'El Período Inicial, el Horizonte Temprano, el Estilo Chavín y la realidad del proceso
formativo en los Andes Centrales', in: Universidad de Lima (ed) Encuentro Internacional de
Peruanistas: Estado de los estudios histórico-sociales sobre el Perú a fines del siglo XX -
Tomo I. Lima: Universidad de Lima.
Burger, R. (1981) 'The Radiocarbon Evidence for the Temporal Priority of Chavin de Huantar',
American Antiquity. 46: 592-602.
---(1984) The Prehistoric Occupation of Chavín de Huantar, Peru. University of California Press,
Publications in Anthropology Vol.14: Berkeley.
---(1992) Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. Thames and Hudson: London.
---(1993) 'The Chavin Horizon: Stylistic Chimera or Socioeconomic Metamorphosis?', in: D. Rice (ed)
Latin American Horizons, pp. 41-82. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Burger, R. & Matos, R. (2002) 'Atalla: A Center on the Periphery of the Chavín Horizon', Latin
American Antiquity. 13(2): 153-177.
Cárdenas, M. (1998) 'Material diagnóstico del Período Formativo en los valles de Chao y Santa, Costa
Norte del Perú', Boletín de Arqueología PUCP. 2: 61-81.
Carrión Cachot, R. (1948) 'La Cultura Chavín - Dos nuevos colonias: Kuntur Wasi y Ancón', Revista del
Museo Nacional. 2(1): 99-172.
Chicoine, D. (2006) 'Early Horizon Architecture at Huambacho, Nepeña Valley, Peru', Journal of Field
Archaeology. 31(1): 1-22.
Cotrina, J., Peña, V., Tandaypan, A. & Pretell, E. (2003) 'Evidencias Salinar: sitios VN-35 y VN-36,
sector Sute Bajo, valle de Nepeña', Sian. 8(14): 7-12.
Donnan, C. (ed) (1985) Early Ceremonial Architecture in the Andes. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
20
Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Elera, C. (1992) 'Arquitectura y otras manifestaciones culturales del sitio Formativo del Morro de
Eten: un enfoque preliminar', in: D. Bonavia (ed) Estudios de Arqueología Peruana, pp.
177-192. Lima: Fomciencias.
---(1993) 'El complejo cultural Cupisnique: antecedentes y desarrollo de su ideología religiosa', in: L.
Millones & Y. Onuki (eds) El Mundo Ceremonial Andino (Senri Ethnological Studies 37), pp.
229-257. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
---(1997) 'Cupisnique y Salinar: alugunas reflexiones preliminares', in: E. Bonnier & H. Bischof (eds)
Archaeologica Peruana 2, pp. 176-201. Mannheim: Sociedad Arqueológica Peruano-Alemana.
Reiss-Museum.
---(1998) The Puémape Site and the Cupisnique Culture: A Case Study on the Origins and
Development of Complex Society in the Central Andes, Peru. Unpublised Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Calgary: Calgary.
Elera, C., Pinilla, J. & Vasquez, V. (1992) 'Bioindicadores zoológicos de eventos ENSO para el
Formativo Medio Tardío de Puémape, Perú', Pachacamac. 1(1): 9-19.
Fuchs, P. (1997) 'Nuevos datos arqueométricos para la historia de ocupación de Cerro Sechín - Período
Lítico al Formativo', in: E. Bonnier & H. Bischof (eds) Archaeologica Peruana 2, pp. 145-161.
Mannheim: Sociedad Arqueológica Peruano-Alemana, Reiss-Museum.
Fung, R. (1969) 'Las Aldas: su ubicación dentro del proceso histórico del Perú antiguo', Dédalo. 9-10
Gambini, W. (1983-1984) Santa y Nepeña: Dos valles / dos culturas. Imprenta M. Castillo R.: Lima.
Ghezzi, I. (2006) 'Religious Warfare at Chankillo', in: W. Isbell & H. Silverman (eds) Andean
Archaeology III: North and South, pp. 67-84. New York: Springer Verlag.
Goldstein, P. (2000) 'Exotic Goods and Everyday Chiefs: Long-Distance Exchange and Indigenous
Sociopolitical Development in the South Central Andes', Latin American Antiquity. 11(4):
335-361.
Huapaya, C. (1978-1979) 'Templo de Tizal, Chao - Trujillo', Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología PUC.
19-20: 127-136.
Inokuchi, K. (1998) 'La cerámica de Kuntur Wasi y el problema Chavín', Boletín de Arqueología PUCP.
2: 161-180.
Izumi, S. & Sono, T. (eds) (1963) Andes 2: Excavations at Kotosh, Peru, 1960. Tokyo: Kadokawa
Publishing Co.
Izumi, S. & Terada, K. (eds) (1972) Andes 4: Excavations at Kotosh, Peru, 1963 and 1966. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
Jennings, J. (2006) 'Core, Peripheries, and Regional Realities in Middle Horizon Peru', Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology. 25(3): 346-370.
Kaulicke, P. (1992) 'Cerro Sechín dentro del contexto arqueológico de la costa norperuana: estudio
21
introductorio', in: E. Maldonado (ed) Arqueología de Cerro Sechín - Tomo I: Arquitectura, pp.
29-44. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú / Fundación Folkswagen.
---(1994) Los orígenes de la Civilización Andina. Historia General del Perú - Tomo I. Brasa: Lima.
---(1998) 'Reflexiones finales: problemas y perspectivas', Boletín de Arqueología PUCP. 2: 353-368.
Kembel, S. (2001) Architectural Sequence and Chronology at Chavín de Huántar, Perú}. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropological Sciences: Stanford University._
Lanning, E. (1967) Peru Before the Incas. Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs: New Jersey.
Larco Hoyle, R. (1941) Los Cupisniques. Casa Editora La Crónica y Variedades S.A. Ltd.: Lima.
Lumbreras, L. (1977) 'Excavaciones en el Templo Antiguo de Chavín (Sector R); informe de la sexta
campaña', Ñawpa Pacha. 15: 1-38.
---(1989) Chavín de Huántar en el nacimiento de la Civilización Andina. Instituto Andino de Estudios
Arqueológicos: Lima.
---(1993) Chavín de Huántar: excavaciones en la Galería de las Ofrendas. Materialien zur Allgemeinen
und Vergleichenden Archäologie 51. Verlag Philipp von Zabern: Meinz.
Museo de Arqueología y Antropología de San Marcos (ed) (2006) Arqueología del valle de Nepeña -
excavaciones en Cerro Blanco y Punkurí (Cuadernos de Investigación del Archivo Tello,
Número 4). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Onuki, Y. (1993) 'Las actividades ceremoniales tempranas en la cuenca del Alto Huallaga y algunos
problemas generales', in: L. Millones & Y. Onuki (eds) El Mundo Ceremonial Andino (Senri
Ethnological Studies 37), pp. 69-96. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
---(2000) 'Una perstectiva del Período Formativo de la sierra norte del Perú', in: G. Lohmann, R.
Burger, Y. Onuki & otros (eds) Historia de la Cultura Peruana, Tomo I, pp. 103-126. Lima:
Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Perú.
---(2001) 'Cupisnique en la sierra de Cajamarca', Arqueológicas. 25: 67-81.Onuki, Y. (ed) (1995) Kuntur
Wasi y Cerro Blanco, dos sitios del Formativo en el Norte del Perú}. Tokyo: Hokusen-sha._
Onuki, Y. (ed) (1995) Kuntur Wasi y Cerro Blanco, dos sitios del Formativo en el Norte del Perú}.
Tokyo: Hokusen-sha._
Onuki, Y. & Fujii, T. (1974) 'Excavations at La Pampa, Peru', The Proceedings of the Department of
Humanities, College of General Education, University of Tokyo (Series of Cultural
Anthropology No.2). 59: 45-104.
Pozorski, S. & Pozorski, T. (1987) Early Settlement and Subsistence in the Casma Valley, Peru.
University of Iowa Press: Iowa City.
---(2002) 'The Sechín Alto Complex and Its Place within Casma Valley Initial Period Development', in:
W. Isbell & H. Silverman (eds) Andean Archaeology I: Variations in Sociopolitical
Organization, pp. 21-51. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
---(2006) 'Las Haldas: An Expanding Initial Period Polity of Coastal Peru', Journal of Anthropological
22
Research. 62: 27-52.

Pozorski, T. (1975) 'El complejo de Caballo Muerto: los frisos de barro de la Huaca de los Reyes',
Revista del Museo Nacional. 41: 211-251.
---(1976) Caballo Muerto: A Complex of Early Ceramic Sites in the Moche Valley, Peru. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas: Austin.
---(1982) 'Early Social Stratification and Subsistence Systems: The Caballo Muerto Complex', in: M.
Moseley & K. Day (eds) Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, pp. 225-253. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
---(1983) 'The Caballo Muerto Complex and its Place in the Andean Cronological Sequence', Annals of
Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 52: 1-40.
Pozorski, T. & Pozorski, S. (1993) 'Early Complex Society and Ceremonialism on the Peruvian North
Coast', in: L. Millones & Y. Onuki (eds) El Mundo Ceremonial Andino (Senri Ethnological
Studies 37), pp. 45-68. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
---(2005) 'Architecture and Chronology at the Site of Sechín Alto, Casma Valley, Peru', Journal of Field
Archaeology. 30: 143-161.
Proulx, D. (1973) Archaeological Investigations in the Nepeña Valley, Peru (Research Report No.13,
Department of Anthropology). University of Massachusetts: Amherst.
---(1985) An Analysis of the Early Cultural Sequence in the Nepeña Valley, Peru (Research Report
No.25, Department of Anthropology). University of Massachusetts: Amherst.
Rick, J. (2005) 'The Evolution of Authority and Power at Chavín de Huántar, Perú', Archaeological
Papers of the American Anthropologist Association. 14: 71-89.
Roe, P. (1974) A Further Exploration of the Rowe Chavin Seriation and Its Implications for North
Central Coast Chronology (Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 13). Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection: Washington D.C.
Rowe, J. (1967) 'Form and Meaning in Chavin Art', in: J. Rowe & D. Menzel (eds) Peruvian
Archaeology: Selected Readings, pp. 72-103. Palo Alto: Peek Publications.
Samaniego, L. (2004) Punkurí: santuario costeño. Agroindustrias San Jacinto: Chimbote.
Shibata, K. (2004) 'Nueva cronología tentativa del Período Formativo - aproximación a la arquitectura
ceremonial', in: L. Valle (ed) Desarrollo Arqueológico Costa Norte del Perú - Tomo I, pp.
79-98. Trujillo: Ediciones SIAN.
Shibata, K. & Hernández, S. (2006) Informe preliminar del proyecto de investigación arqueológica
Período Formativo en Nepeña - tercera temporada 2005. Informe presentado al Instituto
Nacional de Cultura: Lima.
Shibata, K. & Regalado, D. (2005) Informe preliminar del proyecto de investigacin arqueológica Cerro
Blanco de Nepeña - segunda temporada 2004. Informe presentado al Instituto Nacional de
Cultura: Lima.
23
Shimada, I., Elera, C. & Shimada, M. (1982) 'Excavaciones efectuadas en el centro ceremonial de
Huaca Lucía-Cholope, del Horizonte Temprano, Batán Grande, costa del Perú: 1979-81',
Arqueológicas. 19: 109-210.
Tello, J. (1942) 'Origen y desarrollo de las civilizaciones prehistóricas andinas', Anonymous. Actas y
Memorias del XXVII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, vol. 1, pp. 589-723. Lima:.
---(1943) 'Discovery of the Chavin Culture in Peru', American Anthropologist. 9(1): 135-160.
---(1956) Arqueología del valle de Casma. Editorial San Marcos: Lima.
---(1960) Chavín: cultura matriz de la Civilización Andina. Universidad de San Marcos: Lima.
Terada, K. (ed) (1979) Excavations at La Pampa in the North Highlands of Peru, 1975. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
Terada, K. & Onuki, Y. (eds) (1982) Excavations at Huacaloma in the Cajamarca Valley, Peru, 1979.
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
---(1985) The Formative Period in the Cajamarca Basin, Peru: Excavations at Huacaloma and Layzón,
1982. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Vega-Centeno, R. (2000) 'Imagen y simbolismo en la arquitectura de Cerro Blanco, costa nor-central
peruana', Boletín de Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. 29(2): 139-159.
---(2005) Ritual and Architecture in a Context of Emergent Complexity: A Perspective from Cerro
Lampay, a Late Archaic Site in the Central Andes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona:
Arizona.
Watanabe, S. (2004) Social Dynamics and Structure in Prehispanic Andes. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Tokyo: Tokyo.
Wester, C., Martínez, J. & Tandaypan, A. (2000) La Granja: investigaciones arqueológicas. Museo
Arqueológico Nacional Brüning de Lambayeque: Lambayeque.
Willey, G. (1971) An Introduction to American Archaeology II: South America. Prentice Hall: New
Jersey.
Williams, C. (1978) 'Complejos de pirámides con planta en U: patrón arquitectónico de la Costa
Central', Revista del Museo Nacional. 44: 95-110.
24

Shibata Ver2 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Shibata Ver2 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHRONOLOGY (working draft ver.2.2.

- Dec/2006) Koichiro Shibata

Dear professors and colleagues:

The North-Central Coast, particularly Nepeña and Casma Valleys, is currently

Formative Horizon Janabarriu (Burger 1992)

2500-1800 Mito tradition (Bonnier 1997),

Fig. 1: Aprroximate correspondences among major chronological schemes.

In this paper, the chronological terminology from Onuki’s framework will be

A chronological facet of Chavín Problem

Cerro Blanco and its chronology

Fig. 3: Plan of the site of Cerro Blanco (**PROVISIONAL**)

Cerro Blanco Phase

staircases set into the central part Phase of Cerro Blanco.

Additional evidences from Huaca Partida

Huaca Partida was

Cerro Blanco Phase

Nepeña Phase and Samanco Phase

Chronological sequence of the lower Nepeña Valley:

From these excavations, is now looming up a chronological pillar whereby

Huambocayan Phase is recognizable only in the lowest layers of Cerro Blanco

Cerro Blanco Phase is characterized by impressive friezes as well as manifold

contemporaneity to the cases of Nepeña and Casma.

(cf. Shibata 2004).

(T. Pozorski 1976: 114; 1982: 248).

Samanco Phase witnessed a remarkable change of the settlement pattern in

700-500 Early Capilla phase,

Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Research. 62: 27-52.

You might also like

Fig. 3: Plan of the site of Cerro Blanco (PROVISIONAL)