ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF CHERIMOYA

(ANNONA CHERIMOLIA MILL.) AND

GUANABANA (ANNONA MURICATA L.) IN ANCIENT PERU 1
p
DUCCIO BONAVIA, CARLOS M . OCHOA, OSCAR TOVAR S., AND RODOLFO
CERRON PALOMINO

Bonavia, Duccio (Laboratorio de Prehistoria, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Apar-

tado 4314, Lima 100, Peru), C. M. Ochoa (Centro Internacional de la Papa, Lima, Peru), O.
Tovar S. (Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
Peru), and R. Cerrrn Palomino (Departamento de Humanidades, Pontificia Universidad Ca-
trlica del Per(t, Lima, Peru). ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF CHERIMOYA (ANNONA CHERIMOLIA
MILL.) AND GUANABANA (ANNONA MURICATA L.) IN ANCIENT PERU. Economic Botany 58(4):509-
522, 2004. The results of this study confirm the presence of both guanabana and cherimoya in
ancient Peru. Our evidence consists of linguistic data and botanical remains of plants that
were found in archaeological contexts, as well as ceramic phytomorphic representations of the
fruits.

EVIDENCIAS ARQUEOLOGICAS DE CHIRLMOYA (ANNONA CHER1MOLIAMILL.)Y GUAN,g,BANA (ANNONA

MURICATA t.) EN EL ANTIGUOPERIl. Con el presente trabajo se demuestra, que tanto la guan-
dbana como la chirimoya han sido conocidas y utilizadas en el antiguo Per~. Las evidencias
consisten en datos linguisffcos y restos botdnicos de dichas plantas que han sido encontrados
en contextos arqueolrgicos y representaciones en cerdmica de sus frutos.
Key Words: Annona cherimolia, Annona muricata, archaeology, cherimoya, guanabana,
Peru.

The cherimoya (Annona cherimolia) and the
guanabana (Annona muricata) belong to the An-
nonaceae, a difficult family from the point of
view of its numerous genera and species, and
one that is still undergoing revision (cf. Allaby
1992; Bailey 1949; Brako and Zarucchi 1993;
Fries 1959; Geurts 1981; Popenoe [1920] 1974;
Usher 1974; and Soukup 1987). Although the
vegetative and floral characters of the cherimoya
are clearly distinguishable from those of the
guanabana, the seeds of the two species tend to
be fairly similar in appearance and are often
confused in archaeological contexts. Pozorski
and Pozorski (1997), who reviewed the archae-
ological and biogeographic problems posed by
the cherimoya and the guanabana, concluded
that cherimoyas were introduced to Peru from
Guatemala in 1629 by Father Bernab6 Cobo, a
Spanish chronicler, and that the pre-Hispanic
1Received 06 March 2004; accepted 15 August
2004.
history of the guanabana in Peru begins with the
Late Intermediate Period (ca. A.D. 900-1440).
The first of these two conclusions is drawn part-
ly from the writings of Cobo (1964), who sin-
cerely believed that he and he alone had been
responsible for the introduction of the guana-
bana to Peru. However, what Cobo didn't realize
at the time was that the cherimoya was already
being widely grown in other parts of Peru, plac-
es that he had not visited. Unfortunately, while
Cobo's remarks were accepted at face value by
many scholars (see Dressler 1956), the idea that
this species might have been anything other than
an introduced one remained unchallenged until
quite recently (see Bonavia 1982). Others who
appear to have been influenced by Cobo's re-
marks include the Russian geneticist, Vavilov,
who postulated a Central American origin for
the guanabana, and the Brazilian scientist, Pinto
(2002b), who again claimed that the presence of
this species in Peruvian valleys was the result of
" . . . an ancient introduction."
With respect to the cherimoya, Popenoe

Economic Botany 58(4) pp. 509-522. 2004

9 2004 by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.
510 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 58
r,1
r~
(1921) points out that because of the present day O
<
abundance of this plant in many countries of tg3
o o
tropical America it is not easy to establish an
ancient center of origin, but he is inclined to
believe that this species originated in the valleys
of southern highland Ecuador and northern Peru.
Smith (1976) agrees with Popenoe but notes that "7,
tg3 O
ee3
it also " . . . has long been established in Mexico >
9 Pinto (2002a), who acknowledges this con-
troversy, claims that most authors opt for the
highlands of Ecuador, Peru and Chile, where this
d~
O'5
species grows at altitudes ranging between
1600-2000 m. Pinto adds, "The primary centre 9
of diversity probably occurs there corresponding
to Vavilov's South American centre."
According to Weberbauer (1945), the cheri-
C~. o
moya is to be found in a wild state in Peru. He
wrote, it grows " . . . in the warm and dry north- "T
ern v a l l e y s . . , it seems to be native to the warm
eastern floor." Weberbauer also recognized that
the wild forms of this species are widely distrib-
uted in Peru. He notes that the species grows in c5
<
the following areas: In the northern highlands
from around 5 ~ Latitude in the intermontane val- <

ley of Huancabamba; in the Utcubamba Valley;

the Quir6z River; the western basins between
5027 ' and 4~ the western basin of Olmos; the [..,
<
Chanchy River Valley, the Safia River; the Je-
quetepeque River system; the Chicama River; Z
and the Marafi6n River from 9 ~ to 6030'. Inter- 9
k~
estingly enough, in the Marafi6n River Valley,
this species is said to comprise "a wild, primi-
tive form" (Weberbauer 1945).
<
Morales (2003) states that the cherimoya is
native to the highlands of Ecuador and Peru. He 0
,.v
also believes that the greatest diversity in this
species occurs in the province of Loja, wherein r,.)
it grows in dense forests. Interestingly enough,
Popenoe (1921) suggests that " . . . the chirimoya
has undergone practically no change in cultiva- 9
tion." In fact, if pre-Hispanic seeds are com-
pared with present-day seeds (Tables 1 and 2),
z
one finds little or no difference in the seed size.
Similarly, the seed of the modern day cherimoya Z
and the guanabana are closely comparable (Ta-
ble 2).
Apparently no varieties of guanabana have <
been detected. According to Pinto (2002a), the
fruits are " .. ovate, conical or heart-shaped...
," and " . . . the rind has many short, fleshy, ~ tr
pointed protuberances and is generally regarded
as spiny."
As for the cherimoya, its fruit is " . . . nor-
2004] BONAVIA ET AL.: CHERIMOYA AND GUANABANA IN ANCIENT PERU 511

.<
mally heart-shaped, conical, oval or somewhat
<
Z
9
irregular in form due to irregular pollination...
r The fruit surface is smooth in some varieties; in
r others it is covered with small conical protuber-
Z ances" (Pinto 2002a). According to Popenoe
<
(1921), "Variation in the size in form of fruit,
and in character of the surface, is common in all
cherimoyas, both wild and cultivated." In his
1920 study, Popenoe lists five botanical forms
< differentiated on fruit shape and ornamentation
Z
< that had been originally established by Safford
(1914): Forma impressa, f. laevis, f. tuberculata,
f. mammillata, and f. umbonata. While in Ec-
uador, Popenoe (1921) wrote, "I was interested
to see if the various types which we recognize
< in cultivation, accordingly as the surface is
smooth or rough, were to be found upon the wild
trees. They were. In the numerous specimens ex-
amined, the surface was most commonly
.d smooth, with the carpellary areas marked by
Z
< raised lines, but there were also, in limited num-
< bers, most of the other types with which we are
Z
< familiar in California. I did not find the mam-
millate form. The type in which the carpellary
Z areas are slightly sunken (f. impressa Safford)
<
<
and the umbonate form with short, thick, round-
ed protuberances (f. umbonata) were both pre-
sent." Yacovleff and Herrera (1934) use this
same classification as well as Le6n (1964), who
adds, "There are several intermediate forms in
9 Peru and Ecuador." Pinto (2002a) accepts the
r~ five forms and describes them in depth.
r~
Ferreyra (1986) illustrates two cherimoyas,
one without protuberances, and the other with
large protuberances. We were unable to find
9 more printed data on this point, but a comment
made on-line at "Infoagro.com" (2002) reads,
Z
" . . . this classification has a doubtful genetic
9
base, because within the same tree there appear
fruits with different rugosities." This observa-
tion was confirmed by one of our authors
(Ochoa). Morales (personal communication)
z notes that "Wild Cherimoya trees have fruits of
various kinds, e.g., plain [lisa] and mammillate.
z
=. It is not a common case but does sometimes oc-
r cur. I tried to explain it thusly: The cherimoya
<
r~ is an allogamous plant, which means that the
fruits develop from various male parents, pos-
sibly fruits pollinated with different types of pol-
t'q O len that give different F1 fruits on the same tree,
ee~
or are the segregation of a heterozygous plant. I
.=.=~g
am researching this hypothesis but do not yet
[- have answers."
512 ECONOMIC BOTANY
One detail is of major importance for the issue
under discussion here. Pozorski and Pozorski
(1997) write: "Both cherimoya seeds and guan-
abana seeds are similar in color (dark brown to
black)." This is true while the seeds are still
fresh, but in the case of the guanabana they have
" . . . a black colour soon after harvest, but be-
coming dark-brown later" (Pinto and Silva
1996; Pinto 2002a).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA
With respect to the archaeological remains of
the guanabana (Annona muricata), Pozorski and
Pozorski (1997) write, " . . . botanical remains
. . . have not often been reported." Nevertheless,
while scant, the existing evidence does indicate
an early presence of this species in Peru. While
Lanning (1967) simply states that this plant ex-
isted in ancient Peru, Bennett and Bird (1960),
as well as Mason (1964), report its presence in
Early Intermediate Period sites. Larco Hoyle
(1938, 1945, 2001) and Towle (1961) point out
that there are reproductions on Moche ceramics.
Vargas (1962) states that "Artifacts, represent-
ing with great exactitude the fruit of this plant
are frequently discovered on Chimfi pottery." A
photograph of one such pot is included in his
article. However, there is one literature report
that for the moment should be discarded. Pear-
sall (1992) states that the guanabana was found
in "All regions" by 1200-800 B.C. (i.e., by the
end of the Initial Period). This claim, while con-
ceivably true, is not supported by her literature
citations (Towle 1961; Pickersgill 1969; Whitak-
er and Cutler 1965).
Now, let us turn to the actual findings. In the
Vir6 Valley of Peru, the seeds of the guanabana
were discovered at Puerto Moorin site 66 (Er-
icson et al. 1989). Puerto Moorin is contempo-
rary with the Salinar culture, between the late
Early Horizon and the early Early Intermediate
Period (ca. 200 B.c.; Bonavia 1991).
Other pieces of evidence for the Early Inter-
mediate Period (ca. 200 B.C.--A.D. 500) are two
Moche period representations of guanabana that
are held in the collections of the Museo Ar-
queol6gico Rafael Larco Herrera (catalogue
numbers ML006624 and ML006626), one of
which is illustrated in Fig. 1. A third piece from
this collection (ML006625) may also be guan-
abana.
A significant number of seeds (357) were
found at site 631 in the Vir6 Valley, in strata
[VOL. 58
dating to the Middle Horizon (A.D. 500-900)
(Ericson et al. 1989). Abundant seed was also
found in the Jequetepeque Valley site JE-125-
2C south of Cerro Catalina, as well as seed and
leaf remains at site JE-125-2C-2 (V~isquez and
Rosales 2001) in contexts dating to Moche V,
i.e., in the Middle Horizon (ca. A.D. 700) (Ed-
ward Swenson pers. comm., August 2002).
There are several pieces of evidence for the
Late Intermediate Period (ca. A.D. 900-1440),
and specifically for the Chimti culture. First,
there is the ceramic piece illustrated by Pozorski
and Pozorski (1997; see their Fig. 4), which is
stored at the Site Museum of Chanchan, and
which faithfully reproduces the fruit of this
plant. At the site of Manchan in the Casma Val-
ley, guanabana is the "dominant plant food"
(Moore 1981). Seeds of this species were also
found in the Casma Valley at Cerro de la Virgen,
a late Chimfi site (Victor V~isquez pers. comm.
2002).
In the Chao valley of Peru, seeds of guana-
bana appear in late Chimti cultural contexts at
the Santa Rita "B" Complex; while in the Virfi
Valley, Collier (1955) found "2 seeds of soursup
(Anona muricata)" in La Plata Period context (a
synonym of Chimfi). Guanabana was also the
"dominant fruit" at the Chimfi site of Choroval
in the Moche Valley (Pozorski 1976).
With regard to guanabana, Shelia Pozorski
(1976) notes that it " . . . attained widespread
popularity and it was apparently widely con-
sumed . . . " in the Late Intermediate Period and
the Late Horizon (ca. A.D. 1440-1539). This
fruit was an "important food plant" in this tran-
sitional period at the site of Caracoles in the Mo-
che Valley (Pozorski 1976). In the city of Chan-
chan, the remains of guanabana abound in its
artisan sector, as well as in the area demarcated
by the late reoccupation of the Rivero Com-
pound (Pozorski 1976, 1982). The percentage of
finds for this fruit in the artisan sector (SIAR)
are also known. In Cut 1, this food comprises
23.3% of the plant remains, whereas in Cuts 2,
3, and 4 it respectively comprises 43.7%, 13.2%,
and 40.0% of the food remains. In the Rivero
Compound it comes to 45.4%. It was the most-
eaten fruit after lucuma (Pouteria lucuma) (Po-
zorski 1980). Guanabana is found for this same
period and with a "high frequency" at Cerro de
la Virgen, close to Huanchaco (Pozorski 1976).
Excavations were made in a Chimti dwelling at
Huaca Cao Viejo, in the E1 Brujo complex, and
2004] BONAVIA ET AL.: CHERIMOYA AND GUANABANA IN ANCIENT PERU 513

Fig. 1, Moche ceramic representation of guanabana from Cerro Azul, Paij~in (Museo Arqueol6gico Rafael
Larco Herrera, No. ML006624).

guanabana remains were found (Victor V~squez
pers. comm. 2003). "Abundant guanfibana re-
mains" were found in the Jequetepeque Valley
in a Chim6 context (Pozorski and Pozorski
1997; Gummerman 1991). In this same valley,
guanabana seeds and leaf remains were found at
site JE-125-2C-2, and abundant seeds were re-
covered at site JE-619, both dating to the Chimfi
period (V~isquez and Rosales 2001). Tello
(1938) published four representations of fruits,
three of which he identified as cherimoya and
one as guanabana. This is clearly an error, for
all four are guanabana. Three of the illustrated
pieces belong to the Chimfi style, and one is
Chimti/Inca.
Yacovleff and Herrera (1934; their Fig. If)
published an illustration of a Chimfi vessel
which they state represents the guanabana. Upon
analysis of the illustration, we believe their clas-
sification may be correct, albeit with some res-
ervations. Towle (1961), however, accepts it as
such.
Now let us turn to the data on the cherimoya
(Annona chirimolia). About this species Pozor-
ski and Pozorski (1997) write, "In no case . . .
has an illustration of a cherimoya vessel been
p u b l i s h e d . . . Actual botanical remains of cher-
imoya have not often been reported . . . no bo-
tanical remains (seed or plant parts) of cheri-
moya have been conclusively shown to have
been recovered from securely dated archaeolog-
ical contexts nor have any depictions of cheri-
514 ECONOMIC BOTANY
moya ever been documented on pottery vessels
or other media in prehistoric Peru . . . Cheri-
m o y a . . , has not been positively identified any-
where in prehistoric P e r u . . . " . Actual examples
of cherimoya remains in Peru do come to light,
however, by probing somewhat deeper into the
literature. For example, by 1880 Wiener (1993)
had already presented a list of the fruits used as
moulds in pre-Hispanic ceramics, which in-
cludes "Chirimoya (Annona Cherimotia) [sic]"
and "Chirimoya chiqueta (A. Squamosa)." In
this case the mistake is in the second species,
which has never been found in ancient Peru. For
the first, however, Wiener even includes an il-
lustration, as will be seen below.
Lanning (1967) also believes the cherimoya
was cultivated by the ancient Peruvians, but
gives no further details. Bennett and Bird (1960)
and Mason (1964), however, report that this spe-
cies was cultivated in Peru during the Late In-
termediate Period.
Pozorski and Pozorski (1997) believe that the
above scholars, and others, took this datum from
Larco Hoyle (1946). The truth is that it is not
easy to establish a source for this information.
We do know that Larco Hoyle made this claim
more than once (Larco Hoyle 1938, 1945, 1946,
2001), but it is also true that he never presented
any specific evidence. Besides, the Museo Ar-
queol6gico Rafael Larco Herrera has no ceramic
representation of this fruit. One fact proves that
Larco Hoyle was correct, however, the presence
of a word for this fruit in the Muchik language,
as discussed at greater length below.
Based on reports by Safford (1917), Constan-
tin and Bois (1910), and Wiener (1880, 1993),
Towle (1961) believed the cherimoya had been
cultivated in Peru during the time of the Moche
era. Many others have accepted the pre-Hispanic
presence of the cherimoya in Peru based upon
either the botanical evidence or the discovery of
ancient ceramic representations (e.g., National
Research Council 1989). But let us turn again to
specific data.
Bonavia (1982) excavated cherimoya seeds in
the Late Preceramic site of Los Gavilanes, Huar-
mey. Concerning these, Pozorski and Pozorski
(1997) wrote: " . . . examination of the accom-
panying illustration (Popper 1982) plus a brief
personal inspection of the seed in 1978 at Bon-
avia's laboratory in Lima have convinced us that
these seeds are actually those of guanabana.
Moreover, given the small number of seeds
[VOL. 58
found, their context, and presence of late ceram-
ic sites very near Los Gavilanes, it seems very
likely that the nine guanabana seeds are late in-
trusions into the early site." Some clarifications
are in order. First, the Pozorskis were at Bona-
via's laboratory on 15 January 1987 and not in
1978. They may have been acquainted with the
botanical data from Los Gavilanes (PV-35-l) as
they were presented by Popper in 1979, and
published by her in 1982 (Popper 1979, 1982).
This study also mentions the presence of cheri-
moya at Tuquillo, a Middle Horizon site (Bon-
avia 1982) that is situated at some distance from
Los Gavilanes. The closest site with cherimoya
remains is PV35-4, which was studied by John-
son in 1979 and 1989, and the results are still
unpublished. In her final report Popper (1982)
repeated the above data and added a photograph
of five seeds (Fig. 2). These were found in a
Preceramic context of Epoch 3 of Los Gavila-
nes, which corresponds to Lanning's Preceramic
VI (1967), and has uncalibrated radiocarbon
dates of 3750 and 3755, i.e., 2277 B.c. (Bonavia
1982). However, at this point it is possible to
add some unpublished data. Seven seeds were
found in a cut in the structure in Hoyo 1, two
in the transitional context between Preceramic V
and VI, and five in the Preceramic VI context.
A seed was found while cleaning Hoyo 1 (sub-
terranean granary), and another while cleaning
Hoyo 3, in Preceramic VI contexts. This finding
is important because the study of the plan of Los
Gavilanes (Bonavia 1982: Plan 1) shows that the
seeds were found in different places and distant
from each other in the settlement, but always
within the same context. The seeds were exam-
ined by two of the authors (Ochoa and Tovar)
and Popper's identification was confirmed. It
should be added that the seeds are black, a detail
that was already pointed out and which is sig-
nificant (Pinto and Silva 1996; Pinto 2002a). As
far as we know, except for Pozorski and Pozor-
ski (1997), all scholars accept the find at Los
Gavilanes (e.g., Pearsall 1992; Quilter 1991).
As for the supposed presence of cherimoya in
the Initial Period (1500/1800-2500 B.c.), this is
clearly in error. Pearsall (1992) noted its pres-
ence in "All regions," which, as pointed out
earlier, is not actually the case. Later, in a pre-
liminary study, Pearsall (1995) dates the pres-
ence ofAnnona spp. to the Early Horizon, which
in this case means site 66 in the Vir6 Valley.
Actually, according to Ericson et al. (1989), this
2004] BONAVIA ET AL.: CHERIMOYAAND GUANABANAIN ANCIENT PERU
Fig. 2. Cherirnoya seeds found at Los Gavilanes (PV35-1; Preceramic epoch).
site dates to the transition between the Early Ho-
rizon and the Early Intermediate Period, and cor-
responds with the Puerto Moorin culture. In the
final version however, Pearsall (2003) no longer
included this plant in her discussion.
Some seeds found in the urban zone of Moche
and in the Santa Valley at E1 Castillo might be
cherimoya; however, these samples will require
re-verification (Victor V~squez pers. comm.
2002).
Roque, Cano, and Cook (2003) indicate the
presence of cherimoya seeds at the site of Casa
Vieja (PV62-D7) in the Ica Valley, which was
Fig. 3. Cherimoyaseed found at PV35-4 (Middle
Horizon).
515
occupied in the Nasca 7-9 phases, i.e., in the
late Early Intermediate Period, and in the first
epoch of the Middle Horizon (ca. A.D. 500).
Their report, however, is vague and poses some
serious methodological problems. Donald
Proulx (pers. comm., 2002) has long worked in
the South Coast and has never seen either cher-
imoya or guanabana remains or representations
belonging to the Nasca culture.
Cherimoya remains were found in the Huar-
mey Valley at two sites dating to the Middle
Horizon. The first site is Tuquillo (PV35-7; Bon-
avia 1982), where a seed appeared in a very
clear stratigraphic context and was so identified
by Virginia Popper (1979). Two of our authors
(Ochoa and Tovar) have confirmed this identi-
fication. The second site is PV35-4 (see Bonavia
1982), where a seed (Fig. 3) was also found in
clear context, and was identified by Laura W.
Johnson (1987, 1989). Richard Ford (pers.
comm. 2002) analysed the seed and concluded
that "The archaeological seed does not match
Annona muricata or A. diversifolia. The best
match is Annona cherimolia. As is the case with
most archaeological seeds one seed is difficult
to give a definitive species identification without
a population. The distortion and modification
limit us. This caveat applies to this single ar-
chaeological seed. However, the marginal ridg-
es, shape, and size are characteristics that are
identical to A. cherimolia." It should be added
that both samples are black coloured.
With respect to the site of Sapam6 in the La
516 ECONOMIC BOTANY
Leche Valley, Shimada (1980) states that it was
occupied "from the Middle to [the] Late Hori-
zons . . . . " and that cherimoya remains "were
found in most levels." Unfortunately, in his Ta-
ble 4, Shimada lists the common name of An-
nona cf. muricata as "guanabana," thus ruling
this find out of consideration9 In the Vir6 Valley,
however, Ericson et al. (1989) mentions three
sites with cherimoya remains that date to the
Middle Horizon: site 631, where 5 seeds were
found; site 317-01, with 201 seeds; and site 317-
02, with 51 seeds9
At the Manache site of PV35-5 in the Huar-
mey Valley, Bonavia (1982) found 75 seeds of
cherimoya in the midden of a house correspond-
ing to the transitional phase between the Middle
Horizon and the Late Intermediate Period. Iden-
tifications in this case were made by Tovar and
Ochoa.
Finally, the possible discovery of cherimoya
has been reported from the ruins of Las Aldas
(south of the Casma Valley), "in association
with the Chim6 mold-made pottery" in that val-
ley (Fung 1969)9 Rosa Fung (pers. comm., 2004)
reports that this was not a botanical identifica-
tion, and recalls the object examined was in the
form of a seed. She admits to the possibility of
the representation being that of guanabana. No
more data is available for the Late Intermediate
Period9
Constantin and Bois (1910) reported that they
had identified "five grains of Annona cherimolia
or Cherimolier from La Rinconada [the Rfmac
Valley] 9 Their illustration is not sufficiently
clear to analyse the details of each of the seeds
shown and so establish whether the classification
is correct, but off hand it would appear to be so.
Also, the time period is not mentioned, but we
assume that it must be the Late Intermediate Pe-
riod or the Late Horizon. The excavations made
by Cardich (1964) in Cave L-2 in the highlands
of the department of Hu~nuco yielded "1 seed
of Annona sp., a fruit from warm zones [that]
9 is evidence of contacts with lowland cultural
groups." Although Cardich does not clearly say
so, a study of another one of his reports (1983)
indicates that the remains must date to the Late
Intermediate Period or to the Late Horizon9
Pozorski and Pozorski (1997) state that Wie-
ner (1880, 1993) mentions Annona cherimolia,
Annona muricata and Annona squamosa, and
that regarding the latter "no illustrations accom-
pany this statement .9 ."9 True enough there is
[VOL. 58
no illustration of Annona squamosa, but there is
a drawing of a vessel in Wiener's report that is
clearly an Annona species (Wiener 1993:640,
second line, second drawing from left)9 We be-
lieve it to be Annona cherimolia, and suggest to
our readers that they should compare this illus-
tration with Fig. 1 in Pozorski and Pozorski
(1997), which illustrates a "fruit showing large
scalelike protuberances on its exterior." We be-
lieve the piece illustrated is Chimti-Inca, i.e., it
belongs to the Late Horizon9
Finally, there is a ceramic vessel of Chimti-
Inca style in the collections of the Mus6e de
l'Homme in Paris (MN87.114 9 that was do-
nated by M. Lencoyne in 1887 (Daniblle Lav-
allre pers. comm., 2002). The exact provenance
is unknown but there is no question that it is a
cherimoya (Fig. 4)9 It was published in the cat-
alogue of an exhibition held in Paris in 1988
(Musre de l'Homme 1987).
There is additional data from Ecuador that
supports our arguments. A photograph published
in an article on Ecuadorian food plants shows a
vessel from the Valdivia culture, " . . . whose
outer surface was adorned with impressions
made on the fresh clay with kemels of maize"
(Naranjo 1985)9 This statement is definitely in
error because these are not impressions but pro-
tuberances in relief, and are not similar to maize.
We believe that the vessel actually depicts guan-
abana. It is known that Annona was found in the
Loma Alta site in a Valdivia 1-2 context (4500-
2900 B.C.) (Pearsall 1995; Zeidler 2003). Nar-
anjo (1985), on the other hand, illustrated a
Chorrera vessel (1200-300 B.c.) that depicts a
guanabana. This vessel (No9 155-47-66) is from
the Central Bank of Quito. At our request it was
examined by Jaime Jaramillo, a botanist from
the Universidad Cat61ica del Ecuador, who con-
firmed our initial identification9 In another pub-
lication, Estrella (1990) confirms the presence of
guanabana representations in the Chorrera cul-
ture. We were also able to see the photographs
of a Chorrera vessel (No. GA-1-1912-18) in the
Fondo Arqueol6gico del Museo del Banco Cen-~
tral del Ecuador in Guayaquil that we believe-~
may be a cherimoya, but an in-depth exam is
still pending9
LINGUISTIC DATA
Scholars disagree on the origin of the word
guanabana. The dictionary of the Real Academia
Espafiola (2001) indicates that it comes from the
2004] BONAVIA ET AL.: CHERIMOYA AND GUANABANA IN ANCIENT PERU 517

Fig. 4. Chimti/Inca ceramic representation of cherimoya (Mus6e de l'Homme, No. MN87.114.59, Prove-
nance unknown).

Taino term w a n a b a n . Torres (1985) concurs, but
Marcus (1982) believes it is an Arawak term.
Yacovleff and Herrera (1934) believe guanabana
is of Antillean origin, but add the denomination
m a s a without explaining its provenance. Herrera
(1942) states the word guangbana comes from
Haiti; whereas, in Quechua, the term used is m a -
s a s a m b a . Vargas (1962) and Estrella (1990) con-
cur with Herrera on this latter point. It should
be pointed out that the term m a s a s a m b a is cur-
rently used in various highland regions, but for
both the guanabana and the cherimoya. On the
other hand, Schaedel (1988) claims that Brtining
collected the Muchik name of the guanabana as
m a s a . No published study of this northern lan-
guage, however, makes any reference to this
term. Also, Larco Hoyle (1938) did not know of
this name for the guanabana. Even so, Schae-
del's claim would appear to be correct, as ex-
pinned more fully below.
Scholars also disagree on the word cheri-
moya. The dictionary of the Real Academia Es-
pafiola (2001) gives it a Central American and
Venezuelan origin. Marcus (1982) says it is Ar-
awak. Constantin and Bois (1910), Dressler
(1956), Torres (1985), Cordero (1967), and Pinto
(2002a) believe the word to be of Quechua ori-
gin. Herrera (1941, 1942, 1943) believes the
Quechua term for cherimoya is m a s a . Estrella
(1990) agrees. And Larco Hoyle (1938, 2001) is
specific in claiming that the term for this plant
is among the "lost words." The National Re-
518 ECONOMIC BOTANY
search Council (1989) claims that the word chir-
imuya is Quechua; that in Aymara this plant is
called yuructira; and that masa is Spanish.
Schaedel (1988), in turn, claims that this last
term is Muchik and gives Heinrich Briining as
his source. Although the term does not appear
in Brtining's published works, it does appear in
the unpublished materials Schaedel worked with
in the Hamburg Ethnographic Museum, as will
be seen below.
Curiously, the word "cherimoya" does not
appear in the early colonial dictionaries of the
Andean area. Moreover, the name for this fruit
does not appear in the Quechua, Aymara or
Mochica lexicographic treatises. These facts
lead us to suspect that not only was this name
unknown to the early Peruvians, but that the spe-
cies itself was unknown to them. This would
also follow from a reading of the famed histo-
rian and naturalist Bernab6 Cobo (1964), who,
while including the cherimoya in his encyclo-
paedic work, claimed that he imported the seeds
of this fruit from Guatemala around 1629. It
seems that this renowned Jesuit, who was so
careful in giving the Quechua and Aymara
names of native trees and fruits, assumed that it
was a Quechua term. Indeed, it would seem so
for any present-day speaker of Quechua, be-
cause it has a phonic texture that is similar to
that of this language. The etymology of this term
is not clear, however. To begin with, the idea that
"cherimoya" is a primary designation for the
fruit must be rejected because there are unequiv-
ocal signs that it is a composite term. If we as-
sume the term has a Quechua structure, it can
be split into two component parts: chiri and
muya. But, here we run into trouble because if
the first word means 'cold' and the second one
'orchard,' we end up with a semantic incongru-
ity: 'cold orchard,' which does not fit in with the
concept of a fruit. To solve this problem we
chose to use the term muyu, a variant of muhu
that means 'fruit or seed.' This solves part of the
problem for now we have 'cold fruit,' a mean-
ing, however, that is still groundless. The pur-
ported Quechua origin of chirimoya thus re-
mains problematic. And this is equally true for
its modern Aymara name, yuruc-tira, another
composite name, but with an even more obscure
etymology.
Now, assuming that the word chirimoya is
Quechua, we have to reject the meaning 'cold
fruit,' and, therefore, need to find another one
[VOL. 58
that is far more plausible. This can be 'curly
fruit,' a designation of metonymic nature for
chiri would be an abbreviated rendering of chi-
riri, 'wavy, curly,' and muyu, 'fruit,' which sim-
ply is a description of the fruit. In some parts of
the Peruvian highlands, African Americans are
in fact called chirimuya uma, 'cherimoya head.'
However, the etymology here proposed gives us
the composite term chiri-muyu and not chiri-
muya. This change is not hard to explain--the
second variant is a regressive form of the first.
Once this composite was assimilated into Span-
ish, the form chirimoyo designated a tree and
chirimoya the fruit.
The above discussion recalls a chapter in se-
mantics called "word and thing." In the present
case, since there is no original native term for
the fruit it could be concluded that this plant did
not exist in the Andean world, and in that regard
the testimony of a naturalist like Cobo would
appear to carry much weight. But this conclu-
sion clashes with the archaeological evidence.
How can these two conclusions coexist? It is
most likely that although the fruit was familiar
to the populations of the north and central coast,
it did not form part of the diet of the highland
Quechua and Aymara. In fact, when investigat-
ing the name of this fruit in the unpublished vo-
cabulary of Heinrich Brtining (but not in the
Mochica vocabularies of Fernando de la Carrera
(1644) or Middendorf (1892), where the term is
missing), we find the term masa is used not only
for the 'cherimoya,' but also for the 'pineapple'
(anands). This conclusively proves the pre-His-
panic existence of both the name and the
"thing" (i.e., the species). Similarly, the expres-
sion masa-samba, which is what the fruit is
called in some Quechua areas, is in fact a Moch-
ica-Spanish hybrid.
SAFFORD'S SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONTO
OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ANNONA
William E. Safford (1917) was a most respect-
ed botanist who also wrote on ethnology and
linguistics. Two plant genera bear his name: Saf-
fordia Maxon (1913) and Saffordiella Merrill
(1914), as well as 16 other species. In 1891-
1892 he was Commissioner to Peru and Bolivia
for the Chicago Columbian Exhibition. His
study Classification of the genus Annona, with
descriptions of new and imperfectly known spe-
cies (1914), is clearly one of the best that have
been made on this plant, and indisputably shows
2004] BONAVIA ET AL.: CHERIMOYAAND GUANABANAIN ANCIENT PERU
his vast knowledge of this subject. He discov-
ered three species of Annona: A. diversifolia
Safford, A. scleroderma Safford, and A. testu-
dina Safford (Usher 1974:49). In the study that
most concerns us--on Peruvian collections and
the work at Anc6n--he said: "The present ac-
count has chiefly to do with actual specimens
concerning which there can be no doubt" (Saf-
ford 1917; emphasis added). He explains that in
1891, while in Peru, he " . . . assisted in opening
at least two hundred graves." Safford even re-
produced an Anc6n tomb in the United States
using his field notes (Safford 1917). And when
discussing "Vegetal material" he said: "The
material sent by the author from Peru to the Na-
tional Museum was not kept together as a col-
lection, and the plant products were stored away
in drawers. It was not until a careful search
had been made that the specimens of food
products collected by the authors and by oth-
ers were brought to light" (Safford 1917; em-
phasis added). And when Safford mentions the
"Funeral vases" and explains the exhibit he or-
ganised in the United States, he points out that
in one case he placed a vase representing a "cast
of Annona fruit" (Safford 1917). The most im-
portant detail is, however, in the section of his
study discussing the "Annonaceae," for here it
is shown that at Anc6n he not only found vessels
with the shape of this fruit, but also remains of
the fruits themselves, which is fully plausible
due to the perfect preservation provided by the
sands of the Peruvian coast. Safford (1917)
wrote: "In the exhibit presented by the author
are three specimens of chirimoyas (Annona
cherimola [sic] Miller) belonging to the collec-
tion of the U.S. National Museum, which were
found in Ancon graves. These are of three dis-
tinct kinds: smooth, or nearly so (forma laevis),
aerolate with a small wart-like dot near the apex
of each areole ((orma tuberculata), and mam-
milate with teat-like protuberances and acumi-
nate seeds (forma mamiltata)." "In addition to
the specimens of fruit are shown two funeral
vases which were evidently cast from the fruit
itself. One of these is a chirimoya, and the other,
of larger size, bears a close resemblance to the
guandbana (Annona muricata)." The reliability
of Safford is thus clear, and it is understandable
that experts in this subject like Towle (1961)
used his work. His only mistake would be not
having noted the culture to which the finds be-
longed, but this is understandable given the time
519
when the discoveries were made. Furthermore,
at Ancdn there are remains from almost all pre-
Hispanic periods, so it is almost impossible to
suggest any particular dates. But the fact re-
mains that these are pre-Hispanic remains. The
specimens should be located, and they must be
in the archives of the Smithsonian Institution.
CONCLUSIONS
From the above discussion it should be clear
that both cherimoyas and guanabanas were
grown and used on the central and north coast
of Peru in pre-Hispanic times. Furthermore, it
would appear that the guanabana was utilized at
an earlier date on the Ecuadorian coast than in
Peru.
With respect to the cherimoya, Safford (1917)
was correct in claiming that "The occurrence of
these fruits in pre-Columbian graves will at once
refute the statement of Padre Cobo that the chir-
imoya was introduced by him into Peru from
Guatemala in the early part of the seventeenth
century." Safford's statement, of course, was
supported by archaeological data. The reason
why Cobo was misled into believing that he had
introduced the cherimoya to Peru is clear from
a study of his biography. Cobo arrived at Lima
in 1599 and remained there until 1609, when he
left for Cuzco. He returned to Lima in 1613 and
remained there until 1615. Following his stay in
Lima, he returned to the Altiplano where he re-
mained until 1618. Between the years 16t9 and
1621 Cobo lived in Arequipa, and from 1622 to
1626 in Pisco. In 1627 he made a brief journey
to Trujillo, and he left in 1629 for Mexico. On
the way there he stopped at Guatemala. Cobo
returned to Lima in 1642 and stayed in that city
until his death in 1657 (Mateos 1964). Signifi-
cantly, Cobo spent most of his time in the south-
ern highlands and coastal regions of Peru, pre-
cisely the areas where the cherimoya does not
grow. He probably did not get to know this fruit
until he stayed in Central America, where there
are many species of Annona that might conceiv-
ably have caught his attention, and in 1629 he
sent seeds to Peru. On his return 13 years later
he probably believed that the Peruvian Annona
had multiplied from the seeds he sent.
The evidence presented here shows that the
guanabana was known in Peru since at least the
Early Horizon. It was depicted in the Early In-
termediate Period and there is evidence for its
use in the Middle Horizon, the Late Intermediate
520 ECONOMIC BOTANY
Period, and the Late Horizon. Cherimoya first
appears in the late Precerarnic (VI), and there is
evidence of it in the Early Horizon, the Middle
Horizon, and the Late Horizon.
Lastly, the fact that there are words in the Mu-
chik language for both the g u a n a b a n a and the
cherimoya is convincing proof that both species
were k n o w n in pre-Hispanic Peru.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the following individuals who helped us collect
data: Victor E V~quez S., Teresa E. Rosales Tam, Edward R. Swenson,
Ramiro Matos M., Ramiro Castro de la Mata, Andrrs Alvarez Calder6n,
Claudio Huarache M., Kevin Lane, Richard 1. Ford, Daphne Gallagher,
Maritza Freire, Platarco Naranjo, Jaime Jaramillo, Maria del Pilaf Mifio,
Dani~lle Lavallre, Marie-France Fauvet, Karen Olsen Bruhns, Donald
Proulx, Marfa Estelina Quinatoa, Karen Stothert, Rafael Morales and Jon-
athon E. Ericson.
LITERATURE CITED
Allaby, M. (Ed.). 1992. The concise Oxford dictio-
nary of botany. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
England.
Bailey, L. H. 1949. Manual of cultivated plants. Mac-
millan, New York.
Bennett, W. C., and J. B. Bird. 1960. Andean culture
history. American Museum of Natural History,
New York.
Bouavia, D. 1982. Los Gavilanes: Mar, desierto y oa-
sis en la historia del hombre. Cofide, Instituto Ar-
queolrgico Alem~n, Lima.
91991. Perti: Hombre e historia. De los orfge-
nes al siglo XV.I. Edubanco, Lima.
Brako, L., and J. L. Zarucehi. 1993. Catalogue of
the flowering plants and gymnosperms of Peru.
Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.
Cardich, A. 1964. Lauricocha.fundamentos para una
prehistoria de los Andes centrales. Studia Praehis-
torica, III. Centro Argentino de Estudios Prehistr-
ricos, Buenos Aires.
91983. A prop6sito del 25 aniversario de Laur-
icocha. Revista Andina 1:151-173.
Carrera, F. de la. 1644. Arte de la lengua Yunga de
los Valles del Obispado de Trujillo del Peril, con
un confesionario de todas las oraciones cristianas
Traducidas en la lengua y otras cosas. Contreras,
Lima.
Cobo, P. BernabC 1964. Historia del nuevo mundo.
Primera Parte. Biblioteca de autores Espafioles des-
de la formaci6n del lenguaje hasta nuestros dfas.
Ediciones Atlas, Madrid.
Collier, D. 1955. Cultural chronology and change as
reflected in the ceramics of the Vir6 Valley, Peru.
Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 43. Chicago Natural
History Museum, Chicago.
Cordero, L. 1967. Diccionario Quichua-Espafiol. Es-
pafiol-Quichua (1892). Anales de la Universidad de
Cuenca 23(4): 1-258.
[VOL. 58
Costantin, J., and D. Bois. 1910. Sur les graines et
tubercules des tombeaux p6ruviens de la Prriode
Incasique. Revue Grnrral de Botanique 22:242-
265.
Dressier, R. L. 1956. Las plantas cultivadas en el
Mrxico precolombino. Ciencias Sociales 7(40):
277-316.
Ericson, J. E., M. West, C. H. Sullivan, and H. W.
Krueger. 1989. The development of maize agri-
culture in the Viru valley, Peru. Pages 68-104 in
T. Douglas Price, ed., The chemistry of prehistoric
human bones, School of American Research. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Estrella, E. 1990. El pan de America. Etnohistoria de
los alimentos aborfgenes en el Ecuador. Colecci6n
500 afios, 29 Ediciones Abya-Yala, Quito.
Ferreyra, R. 1986. Flora y vegetaci6n del Perti. Pages
1-174 in M. J. Dourojeanni, Gran geograffa del
Peril. Naturaleza y Hombre, Tomo 2. Monfer-Juan
Mej~a Baca.
Fries, R. E. 1959. Annonaceae. Pages 1-171 in A.
Engler and K. Prantl, ed., Die nattirlichen pflanzen-
familien, 2 Eds. Anti.Band 17 aII, Berlin.
Fung Pinedas, R. 1969. Las Aldas: Su ubicaci6n den-
tro del proceso hist6rico del Pertl antiguo. Drdalo
5(9-10):5-207.
Geurts, F. 1981. Annonaceous fruits. Royal Tropical
Institute, Amsterdam.
Gumerman, G. J. 1991. Subsistence and complex so-
ciety. Diet between diverse socio-economic groups
at Pacatnamu, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California, Los Angeles.
Herrera, F. L. 1941. Plantas silvestres. Boletin del
Museo de Historia Natural "Javier Prado" 5(17):
169-180.
- - . 1942. Plantas tropicales cultivadas pot los an-
tiguos peruanos. Revista del Museo Nacional
11 (2): 179-195.
9 1943. Nomenclatura fitonfmica, sinonimias
vulgares de los nombres vernaculares de las plantas
del Cuzco. Revista del Museo Nacional 12(2): 167-
180.
Johson, L. W. 1987. Ms. Preliminary analysis of
Huarmey botanical remains.
91989 Ms. Archaeological plant remains from
Preceramic and Middle Horizon sites in Huarmey,
Peru.
Lanuing, E. P. 1967. Peru before the Incas. Prentice-
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Larco Itoyle, R. 1938. Los Mochicas, Tomo I. Casa
Editora "La Crrnica" y "Variedades," S.A. Ltda.,
Lima.
9 1945. Los Mochicas (Pre-Chimu de Uhle y
Early Chimu de Kroeber). Sociedad Geogr~ifica
Americana, Buenos Aires.
91946. A culture sequence for the north coast
of Peru. Pages 149-175 in J. H. Steward, ed.,
2004] BONAVIA ET AL.: CHERIMOYA AND GUANABANA IN ANCIENT PERU
Handbook of South American Indians. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington.
- - . 2001. Los Mochicas. Tomo I. Museo Arqueo-
16gico Rafael Larco Herrera, Lima.
Lern, J. 1964. Plantas alimenticias andinas. Instituto
Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas. Zona Andi-
na, Lima.
Marcus, J. 1982. The plant world of the sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century lowland Maya. Pages
239-273 in K. V. Flannery, ed., Maya subsistence.
Academic Press, New York,
Mason, J. A. 1964. The ancient civilizations of Peru.
Penguin Books, London.
Mateos, P9 Francisco 9 1964. Personalidad y escritos
del P. Bernab6 Cobo. Pages V-XLVII in P. Bernab6
Cobo. Historia del nuevo mundo. Primera Parte.
Biblioteca de autores Espafioles desde la formaci6n
del lenguaje hasta nuestros dfas. Ediciones Atlas,
Madrid.
Middendorf, E. W. 1892. Das Muchik oder die Chi-
mu-Sprache, Leipzig.
Moore, J. D. 1981. Chimu socio-economic organiza-
tion: Preliminary data from Manchan, Casma Val-
ley, Peru. lqawpa Pacha 19:115-128.
Morales, R. 2003. Colecta, caracterizaci6n y estable-
cimiento de un banco de germoplasma de chri-
moya. Proyecto de la Universidad Nacional de
Loja. Loja, Ecuador.
Mus~e de l'Homme. 1987. Ancien Prrou. Vie, pou-
voir et mort. Exposition du Cinquantenaire. Edi-
tions Feruand Nathan, Paris.
Naranjo, P. 1985. Plantas alimenticias del Ecuador
precolombino. Interciencia 10(5):227-235.
National Research Council9 1989. Lost crops of the
Incas. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Pearsall, D. M. 1992. The origins of plant cultivation
in South America. Pages 173-205 in C. W. Cowan
and P J. Watson, eds., The Origins of agriculture:
An international perspective. Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press, Washington, D.C.
- - . 1995. Subsistence in the Ecuadorian forma-
tive: Overview and comparisons to the central An-
des. Paper presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Con-
ference on the Ecuadorian Formative.
9 2003. Plant food resources of the Ecuadorian
formative: An overview and comparison to the cen-
tral Andes. Pages 213-257 in J. S. Raymond and
R. L. Burger, eds., J. Quilter, general ed., Archae-
ology of formative Ecuador. Dumbarton Oaks Re-
search Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
Pickersgill, B. 1969. The archaeological record of
chili peppers (Capsicum spp.) and the sequence of
plant domestication in Perti. American Antiquity
34(1):54-61.
Pinto, A. C. de Q. 2002a. Taxonomy and botany. Pag-
es 14-22 in A. Hughes, C. R. Clement, N. Haq,
and R. W. Smith, eds., A. C. de Q. Pinto, M. C.
Rocha Cordeiro, S. R. M. de Andrade, E R. Fer-
521
reira, H. A. da Cunha Filgueiras, R. Elesbao Alves,
Five important species of Annona. International
Centre for Underutilzed Crops. Southampton, Eng-
land.
9 2002b. Origin and distribution. Pages 23-25
in A. Hughes, C. R. Clement, N. Haq, and R. W.
Smith, eds., A. C. de Q. Pinto, M. C. Rocha Cor-
deiro, S. R. M. de Andrade, E R. Ferreira, H. A.
da Cunha Filgueiras, R. Elesbao Alves, Five im-
portant species of Annona. International Centre for
Underutilzed Crops. Southampton, England.
Pinto, A. C. de Q., and E. M. Silva9 1996. Graviola
para exportaqao, aspectos t6cnicos da Produqao.
Zimbrapa/SPI, Brasilia.
Popenoe, W. 1921. The native home of the chirimoya.
Journal of Heredity 12(7):330-336.
9[ 1920] 1974, The anonaceous fruits: The cher-
imoya. Pages 161-189 in Manual of tropical and
subtropical fruits, Facsimile of the 1920 edition.
Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New
York, Collier-Macmillan Publishers, London.
Popper, V. 1979. Ms. Analysis of plant remains from
the Huarmey valley, Peru.
9 1982. Analisis de las muestras. Pages 148-
156 in D. Bonavia, Los Gavilanes: Mar, desierto y
oasis en la historia del hombre. Corporaci6n Fin-
anciera de Desarrollo S.A., COFIDE, Instituto Ar-
queol6gico Alem~in, Lima.
Pozorski, S. G. 1976. Prehistoric subsistence patterns
and site economics in the Moche Valley, Peru.
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
91980. Subsistencia Chimt] en Chanchan. Pag-
es 181-193 in R. Ravines, Chanchan, metr6poli
ChimtL Instituto de Investigaci6n Tecnol6gica y de
Normas Trcnicas, Lima.
91982. Subsistence systems in the Chimu state.
Pages 177-196 in M. E. Moseley and K. C. Day,
Eds., Chan Chan: Andean desert city. A School of
American Research Book. University of New Mex-
ico Press, Albuquerque.
Pozorski, T., and S. Pozorski. 1997. Cherimoya and
guanabana in the archaeological record of Peru.
Journal of Ethnobiology 17(2):235-248.
Quilter, J. 1991. Late preceramic Peru. Journal of
World Prehistory 5(4):387-438.
Real Academia Espafiola. 2001. Diccionario de la
lengua Espafiola. Maten Cromo. Artes Gr~ificas,
S.A., Madrid.
Roque, J., A. Cano, and A. Cook. 2003. Restos ve-
getales del sitio arqueol6gico Casa Vieja, Callango.
Revista Peruana de Biolog/a 10(1):33-43.
Safford, W. E. 1914. Classification of the genus An-
nona, with descriptions of new and imperfectly
known species. Contributions from the United
States National Herbarium 18:1-68. Washington.
- - . 1917. Food-plants and textiles of ancient
America. Pages 12-30 in E W. Hodge, ed., Pro-
522 ECONOMIC BOTANY
ceedings of the nineteenth international congress of
Ameticanists, Washington.
Sehaedel, R. P. 1988. La etnograffa muchik en las
fotograffas de H. Brianing 1886-1925. Ediciones
Cofide, Lima.
Shimada, I. 1980. Horizontal archipelago and coast-
highland interaction in North Peru: Archaeological
models. Pages 137-210 in L. Millones and H. To-
moeda, eds., E1 hombre y su Ambiente en los An-
des Centrales. Senti Ethnological Studies, No. 10,
Osaka.
Smith, P. M. 1976. Minor Crops. Pages 301-324 in
N. W. Simmonds, ed., Evolution of crop plants.
Longman, London and New York.
Soukup SAB, J. 1987. Vocabulatio de los nombres
vulgares de la flora peruana y cat,logo de los g6-
neros. Editorial Salesiana, Lima.
Tello, J. C. 1938. Arte antiguo Peruano. Inca, Vol. 1I.
Tortes, B. 1985. Las plantas fifties en M6xico antiguo
segtin las fuentes del siglo XVI. Pages 53-231 in
T. Rojas Rabida and W. T. Sanders, eds., Historia
de la agricultura, epoca prehisp~inica. Siglo XVI.
Vol. 1. Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e His-
totia, M6xico.
Tnwle, M. A. 1961. The Ethnobotany of Pre-colum-
bian Peru. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropol-
ogy. Number Thirty. Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research, Incorporated., New
York.
[VOL. 58
Usher, G. 1974. A dictionary of plants used by man.
Hafner Press, A division of Macmillan Publishing
Co., Inc., New York.
Vargas, C. 1962. Phytomorphic representations of the
ancient Peruvians. Economic Botany 16(2):106-
115.
Vasquez, S. V. F., and T. E. Rosales T. 2001. Ms.
An~ilisis de material orgfinico del Proyecto Pacas-
mayo. Informe final. Trujillo.
Weberbauer, A. 1945. E1 mundo vegetal de los Andes
Peruanos. Estudio Fitogeogr~ifico. Ministerio de
Agricultura, Lima.
Whitaker, T., and H. C. Cutler. 1965. Cucurbit and
cultures in the Americas. Economic Botany 19(4):
321-429.
Wiener, C. [1880] 1993. Perti y Bolivia. Relato de
viaje. Seguido de estudios arqueol6gicos y etno-
gr~ificos y de notas sobre la escritura y los Idiomas
de las poblaciones Indigenas. Tomo 56. "Travaux
de l'Institut Fran~ais d'Etudes Andines", Lima.
Yacovleff, E., and F. L. Herrera. 1934. E1 mundo
vegetal de los antiguos peruanos. Revista del Mu-
sen Nacional 3(3):241-322.
Zeidler, J. 2003. Appendix A: Formative period chro-
nology for the coast and western lowlands of Ec-
uador. Pages 487-528 in J. S. Raymond and R. L.
Burger, eds., Archaeology of formative Ecuador.
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
Washington, D.C.