INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfIlming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help yOu understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced :r.!:o the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the iIlm is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the fill'!!. inspector noticed either biurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been fIlmed, you will fmd a
good image of the page in the adjacent frnme.
3. Wo-len 3 rr-aap, or chart, etc., is part of u'le materiai being photo-
graphed the photographer has followed a defmite method in "sectioning"
the material. It is customary to begin fIlming at the upper left hand corner
of a large sheet and to continue from ieft to right in equai sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below ta;e irrst row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have fIlmed the best available copy.

Micr6filfP.5
International
300 N. ZEEB ROAO, ANN ARBOR, MI 48106
18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND
MILLER, GEORGE ROBERT
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE
ANDEAN CAMEL IDS
University of California, Berkeley PH.D.
8014808
1979
University
Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WClR 4EJ, England
'r
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this
document have been identified here with a check mark
1.
2.
3.
'4.
5.
Glossy photographs __ ./ __
Colored illustrations
----
Photographs with dark background
----
Illustrations are poor copy
----
rint shows through as there is text on both sides of page
----
6. Indistinct, brcken or small print on several pages throughout
----
7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ___ _
8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ___ _
9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available
from school or author
----
10. seem to be missing in numbering only as text
----
11. Poor carbon copy
----
12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type
----
13. Append; x pages are poor copy ___ _
14. Original copy with light type ___ _
i5. Curl ing and wrinkied pages.
----
16. Other ___________________________________________________ _
Univeshv
Micrdfilms
International
300;\; 2::: RD .. ANI\; .=..R30R ....,; ':8106 '313: 761.4700
An Introduction to the Ethnoarchaeo1ogy
of the Andean Came1ids
By
George Robert Miller
B.S. (University of San Francisco) 1966
C.Phi1. (University of California) 1975
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
Anthropology
in the
GRADUATE DIVISION
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Approved:
........ .. ... "?;? 1
ChaL ..... a'l Date
....... fr .. .. ................ .
. . . . . . . . '0. 4 . ?:-( .......... . . /9:;t'9'
Dedicated to all those that valued truth over personal gain
and cooperation over competition.
PREFACE
True to the tradition of most doctoral dissertations,
the text has been written before the Preface, and now only
one pleasant task remains for me the thanking of the
innumerable friends and colleagues that made this research
effort possible.
At its inception this project is indebted to the intel-
lectual stimulation of Elizabeth Wing in the field of
camclid zooarchaeology. It was she who originally suggested
to me the value of studying a large sample of camelid bones
from La Raya. In this regard the Instituto Veterinario de
Investigaciones Tropicales y de la Altura and particularly
its camelid station at La Raya deserve recognition
the facilities that they provided me. Although the list of
the La Raya personnel that lent me assistance could itself
almost fill a volume of this size, several names stand out
for special thanks. Domingo Jara cheerfully assisted in the
often boring task of skeletal preparation and patiently
answered my endless questions concerning Quechua bone termi-
nology and camelid husbandry practices. His cooperation and
ingenuity in the face of frequently trying conditions are at
the very base of the La Raya comparative collection.
ii
Another La Raya emploYee, Ubaldo Zafra, came to my aid in
July, 1975 when I took a hard look at the calendar and real-
ized that I would never complete the project without assis-
tance. Ubaldo's generous performance of many tedious but
necessary clerical tasks in these last two months allowed me
a degree of sanity which would have been absent without him.
To all other unnamed member s 0 f the La Raya staff that sup-
ported my project to the end I extend sincere thanks and "un
abrazo fuerte."
In regard to the ethnographic portion of the project I
owe a great debt to the many residents of Tuqsa, Huaycho and
La Raya who gave generously of their time and hospitality.
My ethnographic work w<1s greatly enhance by the suggestions
and friendship of Jorge Flores Ochoa. His prior experience
in Tuqsa facilitated my entrance into this community and
lBter his editorial comments on the ethnographic chapters
helped refine this part of the study. My assistant during
the ethnographic work was Percy Paz Flores. His fluency in
Quechua, keen ethnographic eye and easy sense of humor were
invaluable aids to an anthropologist more accustomed to
dealing with stoic sternabrae and phlegmatic phalanges than
with living personalities. It is certainly no exaggeration
to say that the proj ect would have been impossible without
him.
iii
In April, 1975 Jorge Quinones, owner of the Estancia
Vicuna, graciously provided me with the opportunity to
extend my osteological studies to the guanaco of Tierra del
Fuego. The week that I passed on his sheep ranch collecting
guanaco skeletons among oak forests and shadows of the
ancient Ona was a magical time that will not ~ e soon forgot-
ten. I am indebted to Kenneth Raedeke and his wife, Linda,
not only for facilitating the original contact with Sr.
Quinones but also for stoically suffering through my boiling
of guanaco bones in their kitchen in Punta Arenas. As an
extension of my study of guanaco osteology Rosendo Pascual
kindly allowed me to study the skeletons of both modern and
fossil camelids at the Museo de La Plata, Argentina.
The research was funded by the National Science Founda-
tion (Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Research),
the Center for Latin American Studies, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley a Robert H. Lowie Graduate Fellowship
from the Departm5-nt of Anthropology, University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley and the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley.
I owe a great debt to a number of Berkeley faculty
members who aided this project. My principal adviser
throughout my grad uate stud ies was John H. Rowe. To John I
extend my heartfelt gratitude, not only for his many hours
iv
of counsel, but mostly for having the wisdom to recognize
the zoclogogist trapped in the body of an archaeologist. To
Glynn L. Isaac and William A. Clemens for providing impor-
tant advise in regard to my research design and the analysis
of field data. To Oliver Pearson and the M u s e u ~ of Ver-
tebrate Zoology for supporting my work both materially and
intellectually. To Patricia Lyon for her many hours of
editing and advise during the travails of fieldwork. To
Robert Rodden for his enthusiastic support and his lesson of
humanism.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the
many friends and relatives that helped me see this study to
completion. To my friend and typist,
assistance too numerous to detail.
Richard Burger, for
To Al FI ynn for his
writer's hideaway. To my father, Leo Miller, for his sense
of humor and Figure 5-7. To my mother, Jean Duffy Miller,
for sanctuary to write the last chapter and for support that
extends far beyond this project. Finally and most impor-
tantly, to my wife, Joan, for her patience and love
throughout the five years of labor.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .............. ~
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................. 0:: 1
The Nature of the Andean
Andean Camel id s. The
Research Objectives.
Research Methods ...
Osteological Studies ..
Ethnozoological Studies .
Fauna.
1
..... 3
.7
.8
.8
14
CHAPTER 2 BUTCHERY AND CONSUMPTION .................. 19
Methods ..........
Butchery Personnel
Butchery Locale.
Slaughter ..
and Tools.
Ventral throat
Dorsal s t ~ . .::.
Ch'illa
sl it.
An indigenous technique.
Ritualistic or utilitarian?
Geographical distribution.
Skinning.
Ev isceration .
Di smemberment.
Brisket ..
Forel imbs .
Hindlimbs.
Neck ...
Thoracic and lumbar vertebrae ...
Cannon bones .......
Comparative
Preparation
Head
Axial
Di smemberment.
for Cooking.
skeleton ..
Vertebrae.
Ribs .
Sternum
vi
21
23
....... . 24
.25
.25
.26
. ..... . 27
?1
.J'
....... . 34
.... . 36
39
. .. 42
... 43
.44
.44
46
47
.47
.48
.48
...... 53
.53
. .. 56
.56
.57
.57
Long
Scapula ................................ 59
Innominate ....................... 59
bones, ........................ 61
Humerus .......................... 62
Radius-Ulna .................. 62
Femur .................................. 64
Tibia .................................. 66
Cannons and phalanges ......... 66
Density Determinations ............... 68
Cooking and Eating .................... 68
Summary ..................................... "" ..... 75
CHAPTER 3 -- ADDITIONAL FACTORS OF CULTURAL TAPHONOMY . 77
Im pI em en t s ........................................ 77
Games and Toys ......................... 80
Scavenger Activity ................ 82
Burning ..................... . ' ............... _ .... . 86
Ceremonial Use of Camelids ............... 88
Housekeeping Behavior .................. 92
Vertical Bioenergetics ......................... 97
S urn mar y . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 00
CHAPTER 4 -- CASE STUDIES FROM THE VALLEY OF CUZCO ...... 103
Site Descriptions ....................... 103
Marcavalle ..................... 103
Qhataq'asallacta ................. 106
Min a spa t a ............. ~ ..... 1 07
Methods of Analysis .............................. 108
Species Identification ................ 112
Relative Importance of Different Species ....... 114
Number of Identified Specimens ...... 115
Minimum Number of Individuals ........ 11?
Cuzco Valley MNI calculations ........ 121
The problem of bilateral variation . 123
MNIs, excavation units and
refuse disposal spheres ........... 125
MNI results ............................ 133
The reliability of MNI estimates
of secondary species ........... :134
Weight of Usable Meat ........ 137
Camelid size differences ........... 138
Univariate metrical analysis .. 140
vii
Bivariate metrical analysis ......... 150
Multivariate metrical analysis ....... 157
Summary of metrical results .......... 159
Use of metrical resul ts for
calculation of weight of usable meat .. 159
Problem of ignoring the weight factors.163
CHAPTER 5 -- THE IMPRINT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR ........... 166
Backgound of Differential Representation Studies.166
Measures of Skeletal Completeness ......... 173
A Pr 0 b 1 em 0 f Co un t i ng Un its ............... 1 78
Cuzco Valley Differential Representation ....... 183
Intra-site Differential Representation ........ 185
Cranial Representation .......... 187
Fore-quarters versus hind-quarters ....... 189
South ll.merican schlepp? ............ 190
Schlepping a guanaco? ................. 195
Schlepp effect percentages ....... 197
Differential durability ............ 199
Butchery and consumption factors ..... 203
Carnivore scavenging factors ...... 209
M e at dis t rib uti 0 n fa c to r s . . . . . . . ... 21 0
Marcavalle vs Qhataq'asallacta Faunal Patterning.214
Age structure differences ............. 215
Bone complex differences ........ 217
Fracture pattern differences ..... 218
Bone burning differences ............. 219
Comminution differences ...... 220
Cultural Differences Between the Cuzco Sites . 224
CHAPTER 6 -- SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS .......... 232
ENDNOTES .... 245
Chapter 1 ......................................... 245
Chapter 2 ........................................ 246
Chapter 3 ........................................ 251
Chapter 4 ................... ~ ................... . 253
Chapter 5 ........................................ 257
BIBLIOGRAPHy ................... 260
viii
APPENDIC ES ................................................. 270
Appendix I -- Quechua Bone Terminology ........ 270
Appendix II -- Computer Code Book ........ 272
EXPLANATION OF PLATES ................................. 292
PLATES ..... 295
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Faunal remains excavated from archaeological sites have
been subjected to increasingly detailed and sophisticated
analyses in recent years. These studies have dealt with
such topics as possible structural modification to bone due
to domestication, faunal remains as seasonal occupation
indicators, differential bone representation as an indicator
of human behavior, differences in faunal management prac-
tices as reflected in the age structure of the exploited
animals, etc. However, the bulk of these studies have been
confined to the Old World and to a smaller degree to North
America. Until very recently this aspect of prehistoric
reconstruction has been sadly neglected in South American
archaeology, and the great majority of published reports on
archaeological faunal remains from the Andean area has been
limited to appended lists of identified species.
The Nature of the Andean Fauna
While this lack of emphasis on zooarchaeological
research in the Andes is probably due to a variety of unex-
plained factors, surely it has been influenced in part by
the nature of the South fauna. The fauna utilized
aboriginally by man in the Old World was characterized by an
2
abundance of medium to large size ungulates. These were
both wild (a variety of antelope, deer, rhinoceros, auroch,
equids, etc.) and domesticated (cattle, sheep, goat, camel,
pig, horse, reindeer). The great variety of ungulate taxa
utilized by man in the Old World is reflected in faunal
lists from archaeological sites as diverse in time and space
as lower Pleistocene Olduvai Gorge (Leakey, 1971), Middle
Pleistocene Terra Amata (de Lumley, 1972) and the Neolithic
Deh Luran Plain (Hole, et a1., 1969). The diversity of fau-
nal communities in the Old World seems to have attracted a
good deal of early paleontological and zoological research
in that area which in turn has formed the foundation of a
healthy tradition of zooarchaeological investigations.
The Neotropical fauna of South America, al though
extremely rich in endemic forms, contrasts strikingly with
the Old World in terms of ungulates utilized by man. Only
four groups of ungulates (tapirids, tayasuids, cervids and
camelids) are extant on the South A.1'Jlerican continent. The
diverse bovid group which has contributed so much to the
cultures of the Old World and North America is entirely
absent in South America, apparently never ab12 to penetrate
successfully Neotropica from Nearctica. The Andean area,
which is the zoogeographical focus of this study: is even
more restricted in regards to ungulates. With the exception
of an occasional tapir or peccary obtained from the eastern
3
slopes, only four species of camelids and three species of
cervids were available to peoples of the prehistoric Andes.
Of these seven species only the llama and the alpaca were
ever domesticated and played major cultural roles analagous
to the domesticated bovids and equids of the Old World.
Thus, the majority of Andean archaeological sites are
characterized by a heavy reliance on deer and camelids, and
in sites from later time periods it is not uncommon to find
the fauna represented by over 90% camelids, presumably of
the domesticated varieties. It is perhaps partially a
result of this lack of species diversity that concern for
zooarchaeological information has been such a recent
development in the Andes.
The Andean Camel id s
In addition to the monocrop nature of most faunal
assemblages from Peruvian archaeological sites, the dominant
camelid group has presented some unique obstacles to ade-
quate faunal analysis. These animals are representatives of
the family Camelidae. This group traces its ancestry back
to Oligocene times in North America. Here the fossil pro-
genitors gave rise to two extant tribes; the Camelini
crossed the Bering Land Mass to become eventually the
dromedary and Bactrian camels of Eurasia, while the Lamini
4
radiated south into tropical North America (Florida),
Mesoamerica and South America during the Early Pleistocene.
By Middle Pleistocene times the original South American
llamines (sic) had become differentiated into two fossil
genera of camel size, Palaeolama and Hemiauchenia. In the
rugged puna environment of the Andes Palaeolama further dif-
ferentiated at this time into two smaller genera, Lama and
Vicugna (Webb, 1965, 1974). At the end of the Pleistocene
Hemiauchenia and Palaeolama became extinct, leaving Lama and
Vicugna to occupy the entire Andean zone plus the pampas of
Argentina. By historic times four "species" of camelids
were established in the Andes; Lama guanicoe (guanaco), Lama
glama ( llama) , Lama pacos ( alpaca) and Vicugna vicugna
(vicuna) .
The sytematics of the extant camelid genera are replete
with controversy. The arguments center on the degree of
morphological, genetic and behavioral difference that exist
among the four commonly recognized "species." At issue is
al so the time depth 0 f these differences and the role of man
in the creation of the domesticated forms.
The wild guanaco (Plate 1) is commonly considered to be
the progenitor of the domesticated llama (Plate 2), to which
it bears considerable resemblance in morphology and
behav ior. In fact, the llama is often referred to as a
5
"domesticated guanaco." The derivation of the smaller and
fine wooled alpaca (Plate 3), however, is not so easily
explained. Because the domesticated alpaca shares certain
morphological features and behavioral characteristics with
the wild (Plate 4), several authors have suggested an
ancient stock or hybrid as the origin of
the alpaca (Gilmore, 1950; Steinbach, 1953; ROhrs, 1958).
On the other hand, Herre (1952, 1953) has argued, on the
basis of details of cranial morphology, that the guanaco is
the ancestor of both the llama and the alpaca.
The matter is further complicated by the fact that all
four animals can interbreed successfully and produce fertile
offspring. Llama-alpaca hybrids, called waris or "huar-
izos", are not uncommon in contemporary domestic herds in
Peru, and all other combinations have been produced experi-
mentally. This interfertility does not conform very well to
the standard definition of species as mutually exclusive
breeding populations and has caused a number of researchers
to opt for a tighter taxonomic classification of the Andean
camelids. This classification recognizes only one genus
(Lama) in which the alpaca and guanaco are assigned
subspecific rank within the species Lama glama, and the
is assigned to a separate species as Lama vicugna.
As a final source of confusion, a number of respected
6
South American paleontologists have claimed that all four
contemporary Andean camelids, both wild and "domesticated",
have been found as distinct forms in Pleistocene deposits in
Patagonia (Lo pez Ar ag uren, 1930; Cabrera, 1931). This claim
has never been verified by further investigations, but if
found to be true, "lQuld mean that human beings had little or
no role in changing the morphology of the beasts.
These debates concerning the origin and taxonomy of the
Andean camelids, although interesting on a purely zoological
level, are also of crucial concern to the Andean archaeolo-
gist. The evolutionary proximity of the Andean camelids to
each other and the taxonomic confusion which surrounds them
is a reflection of the similarity of their bones. There are
no morphological features with which to differentiate con-
sistently among the fragmentary remains of the four
camelids. Only in the case of the fortuitous discovery of a
vicuna incisor can a single species of Andean camelid be
identified
1
features.
on
In
the basis of qualitative morphological
general, the faunal analyst is able to iden-
tify these bones from an Andean archaeological site which
are "camelid", but is not able to distinguish visually among
the four species with any confidence. This inability has
been the chief stumbling block to the development of Andean
zooarchaeology and. has made detailed reconstructions of
prehistoric economies extremely difficult.
7
The importance of learning how to distinguish among the
camelid groups: however: cannot be forgotten. It is clear
from historical and ethnographic evidence that the four
animals, albeit very closely related, were utilized in very
different ways during aboriginal times. Llamas were used
principally as pack animals, while alpacas were utilized for
their fine wool. Both of these domesticates were also used
for meat and purposes of religious sacrifice. Guanacos and
vicunas, on the other hand, were never domesticated and were
obtained only through hunting and/or community drives.
Thus, camelids were associated with at least three separate
sets of human behavior which the Andean archaeologist would
love to be able to reconstruct. If the four caT.elid groups
are not distinct species in the strict taxonomic sense, at
least they were viewed as functionally distinct by the
Andean natives that herded and hunted them; and it is this
human perception that most interests the prehistorian.
Research Objectives
Research focused on three major problems of camelid
zooarchaeology: 1) morphological criteria for distinguishing
between the species; 2) age structures of contemporary herds
and epiphyseal fusion criteria for determining the age at
death of archaeological animals; 3) cultural taphonomy as a
factor in differential bone visibility.
8
R e s e a ~ ~ h Methods
In order to investigate the above problems research
involved three basic activities: 1) Laboratory study of the
osteology of a large sample of camelid skeletons. These
studies consisted of the analysis of qualitative morphologi-
cal features, biometric analysis, determination of densities
of individual skeletal elements and recording the states of
fusion at individual epiphyseal foci in animals with known
ages; 2) Field observation of camelid husbandry practices in
traditional herding communities. These studies focused on
aspects of bone treatment, age structure of herds and herd
management decisions; 3) Laboratory analysis of three
archaeological bone samples as case studies on which to test
information and hypotheses generated in the two previous
activities.
Osteological Studies
This research was conducted in the southern highlands
of Peru between September, 1974 and September, 1975. My
base of operations during the year of field work was the
South American Camelid Center at La Raya, Peru. This
research station is operated by the Instituto de Investiga-
ciones Tropicales y de la Altura (IVITA), of the Universidad
9
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos with the cooperation of the
Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture. It is located just north
of the Nudo de Vilcanota on the main Cuzco-Puno road at an
altitude of 4100 meters above sea level (see Figure 1-1).
The La Raya station maintains several large herds of
alpacas (totaling over 7,000 head), along with a number of
much smaller herds of llamas, vicuY'las and paco-vicuY'las
(alpaca-vicuY'la hybrids). These animals are kept for a
variety of experimental purposes. These include parasito-
logical, physiological and nutritional studies, but the
principal thrust of the research program is in the area of
reproductive biology. The alpaca is one of Peru's most
valuable resources, and as such, its reproductive success is
an economic concern of national importance.
Although the La Raya camelids are probably better fed
and cared for than any other camelids in existence, they do
suffer a 3-4% annual mortality rate. Previous to my project
the bones of these natural fatalities normally were disposed
of in an open area behind the station's buildings. Burial
in this area, referred to as the "La Raya bone cemetery",
was not formal, however, and bones were often found to have
been disinterred by scavenging dogs or human digging. T h ~ s ~
these bones were not considered to be suitable for detailed,
osteological studies. Instead, it was decided to salvage
o
10
25
, I ,
1. COOPERATIVA HUAYCHO
2. TUQSA
s;>'OO 3. I.V.LT.A . LA RAYA
~
- Major Road
-- Major Drainage
4/050
I (
/
10
S:ale
Elevation in meters
~ __ ~ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ~ __ ~ ______ ~ ________________________ ~ ____ -r1r
80
Figure 1-1 Area of ethnoarchaeological fieldwor.k.
1 1
the carcasses of as many of the natural fatalities as possi-
ble and to prepare fresh complete skeletons. After autopsy
in the La Raya pathology laboratory and recording the
animal's essential data, the carcass was eviscerated,
stripped of its meat, dismembered and boiled in 25 gallon
containers over an outside, alpaca dung, cow dung or wood
fire for 4 to 12 hours. The boiling time was dependent on
the age of the animal and the available fuel. Due to the
lack of more sophisticated facilities and materials the only
additive to the boiling water was laundry detergent. After
boiling the bones were cleaned of all remaining tissue,
rinsed, and then dried in the sun for two to four days.
Each bone element from the skeleton was then marked with
India ink with the animal's IVITA tag number, or lacking
such a tag, with an improvised catalogue number. 32 alpa-
cas, 5 llamas, 4 and 2 from the IVITA
2
herds were prepared in this way. In addition the carcasses
of a number of wild animals were donated by local residents.
These were prepared in similar fashion and included in the
osteological reference collection.
The only camelid absent from La Raya collection was the
wild guanaco. These animals, formerly abundant in the Peru-
vian Andes, currently are found in great numbers only in
Patagonia. Thus, in order to observe the guanaco and to
obtain skeletal specimens I travelled both to Tierra del
12
Fuego, Chile and to the Provincia de Chubut, Argentina dur-
ing April, 1975. In Chile I was able to make contacts which
allowed me to collect and prepare the remains of 6 guanacos
found dead in the forests of Tierra del Fuego.These guanacos
were returned to La Raya where their cleaning and prepara-
tion was completed. They were then added to the comparative
collection.
With the addition of several alpacas, llamas and a wari
purchased from traditional herders in communities in the
southern sierra the final inventory of camelid skeletons
prepared at La Raya is as follows:
37 alpacas
7 llamas
1 wari
4 vicuYlas
2 paco-vicunas
6 guanacos
The bones of each of these specimens were subjected to
a series of biometric measurements. These measurements were
taken with dial calipers reading to a tenth of a millimeter
and with an osteometric board reading to half of a millime-
ter. 283 separate bone dimensions per individual were meas-
ured in this way.
Each specimen with a known age was examined in regard
13
to the state of fusion at various long bone fusion loci.
Lacking radiographic equipment this examination was limited
to surface evidence of fusion, non-fusion, or partial fusion
(ie. epiphysis fused to diaphysis but fusion line still
present) . This information, in conjunction with dental
eruption data gathered from the same animals, was used to
deteimine the ages of death of the archaeological specimens.
Upon of these osteological studies many of
the camelid and othei reference specimens were donated to
South American institutions. These include the Museo
Nacional de y Lima (4 alpacas, 2
llamas, 3 vicunas, 1 paco-vicuna, 2 Andean foxes, 1 cuy, 1
viscacha; 1 skunk, 1 puma, 1 wildcat, 1 domesticated cat);
Centro Regional Sur de Investigaci6n y Restauracidn de
Bienes Monumentales, Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Cuzco (2
alpacas, 1 sheep, 1 viscacha, 1 fox, 1 cuy); Univer-
sidad Nacional del Cuzco, San Antonio Abad (1 alpaca); Museo
de IVITA, La Raya (1 alpaca, 1 vi0una, 1 paco-vicuna, 1
fox); Museo de La Plata, Departamento de de
los Vertebrados, La Plata (1 alpaca). In addition the fol-
lowing camelid specimens are found on permanent loan to the
Laboratorio de Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos, Lima: 14 adult alpaca skeletons, 14 juvenile
alpaca skeletons, 5 adult llama skeletons, 1 wari skeleton,
6 guanaco skeletons (various degrees of completeness), 13
14
alpaca cranea and 2 llama cranea. degrees of completeness)
Ethnozoological Studies
Of equal importance with the basic osteological studies
the of investigating the contemporary patterns
cf relationships in highland Peru. A number of
g:}od ethnegraphic stud ies had been done on llama-alpaca
herding communities (Custred, 1968; Flores Ochoa, 1968;
Nachtigall, 1966; Palacios, 1977; Webster, 1971), but in all
cases the focus had been on the herders and their social
institutions. Very little attention had been paid to the
or to the material culture associated
-y;i'.:.h them. No previous study had attempted to investigate
(>r:r.:temporary camelid herders through the eyes of an
archaeologist; ie. concentrating on those aspects of the
culture that might be expected to leave some trace in the
archaeological record. The most obvious source of these
ethnoarchaeological data is, of course, in the bones of the
animals vis a vis the ways in which these bones are treated
by their human handlers.
In his stud y 0 f the ! Kung Bushmen John Yellen has
termed this type of ethnozooarchaeological evidences as
patterning in faunal remains" (Yellen, ms.). Cen-
is
tral to study is the message that butchery, meat dis-
tribution and bone waste disposal are culturally governed
activities and as such can often reveal pertinent informa-
tion human lifestyles. This cultural information
is tucked away in such seemingly inconsequential data as the
manner in l..rhich bones are disposed of on a site, the ways in
which they fractured and the frequencies with which some
bones preserve and others disappear.
Interest in "cuI tural patterning in faunal remains" is
closely allied to a recently resurrected sub-field of
paleontology, called taphonomy. Taphonomy refers to the
study of the passage of bone material from the biosphere to
the lithosphere (Efremov, 1950); i.e. the reasons behind why
some ancient bones become permanently fossilized to await
the paleontologist's pick, while others decay or are scat-
tered to be lost forever to the fossil record. The biologi-
cal and geological factors which have been implicated in
bone patterns in paleontological sites are complex
and multifaceted (Behrensmeyer, 1975), and the situation
becomes even more complicated when factors of human activity
are added to the picture. In addition to the natural fac-
tors involved in paleontological bone survival the question
of whether an archaeological bone is able to successfully
pass from the living animal to the zooarchaeologist's
analysis table is influenced by a myriad of variables. This
16
journey from the biosphere to final analysis can be con-
ceived of as a pathway strewn with n'.lDlerous obstacles; or a
filtration system with many valves and filters. Such a cul-
tural taphonomic system is illustrated in Figure 1-2. This
model represents graphically my intuitive view of camelid
taphonomy before going into the field in 1974. It consists
of a sequential listing of the major factors which I
believed would affect camelid bone survival, and thus, those
factors which needed to be investigated in the field. The
principal goal of these taphonomic investigations was seen
as fleshing out the model by documenting the magnitude and
directionality of these factors, and the identification of
additional factors.
The ethnoarchaeological studies which provided the
majority of the cultural taphonomic data took place in a
number of native alpaca herding communities in the southern
highlands of Peru. In December, 1974 and June, 1975 I
visited the community of Tuqsa located in a puna environment
(4300 meters) in the mountains east of Sicuani (see Fig. 1-
1). Tuqsa is a small community of some fifteen traditional
puna households. The occupants make a living by raising
potatoes for home consumption and herding alpacas and sheep
for their wool which they then sell to dealers from Sicuani.
In this community I was able to observe two camelid
butcheries, interview a number of modern herders and
{.;\
V
DEATH AGE

[ ,"T::]+
.RE-COO-;;;:L. [coo ... :1..... I COn'IlHPTIO
'f
L-..-. ______________________ _
Figure 1-2 Pre-fieldwork model of major taphonomic factors affecting the survival
of bone from the living animal to the analysis table.
_ ..
-..l
18
excavate in a modern midden
3

In June, 1975 I visited the Cooperativa Huaycho located
at approximately 4600 meters, 35 kilometers northeast of
NuYloa (see Fig. 1-1). This cooperative is the result of the
dissolution of an old hacienda by the Peruvian Agrarian
Reform. The "comuneros", although employing a college edu-
cated administrator and sharing many Cooperative tasks,
manage their llamas and alpacas in a traditional fashion
with few signs of modern technology. At Huaycho I was able
to observe two butcheries, to interview a number of alpaca
herders, and to excavate in the kancha of a recently dissoc-
cupied herder's house complex
3

In June, 1975 I visited the Cooperativa San Martin de
La Raya located at some 4200 meters elevation about 30
kilometers south of IVITA, La Raya, on the Cuzco- Puno road
(see Fig. 1-1). Here I was able to take age/sex censuses of
two alpaca herds and to interview camelid herders.
My stay at IVITA, La Raya also provided ample opportun-
ity for the observation of some aspects of camelid husban-
dry. This facility, although highly technological in its
orientation, is manned by numerous llama and alpaca herders
from traditional backgrounds. These herders were an invalu-
able source of information concerning camelid management.
Chapter 2
BUTCHERY AND CONSUMPTION
A growing body of archaeological literature has
developed over the past several years concerning the
butchery and consumption of animals that were utilized for
meat by prehistoric man. The fundamental goal of these stu-
dies has been the reconstruction of human behavior in regard
to the hunting of game animals and the later processing of
their meat. Some of these descriptions have drawn on
osteoarchaeological data as well as ethnographic observa-
tions of butchery and meat processing (Yellen, n.d.; Bonni-
chsen, 1973; Brain, 1967, 1969), while others have been
based entirely on archaeological evidence and therefore are
largely inferential in nature (White, 1953; Wheat, 1972;
Frison, 1973; Perkins and Daly, 1968; Dart, 1957). Although
sharing many aspects of method and purpose with the above
works, the following step-by-step description of camelid
butchery and consumption differs from them in two important
respects.
With the partial exception of C.K. Brain, who studied
Hottentot food remains to shed light on australopithecine
related bone accumulations, all other investigators have
dealt with wild species that are utilized by hunting and
20
gathering peoples. The present study of llamas and alpacas
is unique in its focus upon domesticated species. The prob-
lems which must be considered in such a study of domesti-
cated animals 2re often different from those encountered
with wild prey. Hunting techniques are replaced by husban-
dry practices, kill sites by corrals, and problems of tran-
sporting the kill to the living site are simply not applica-
ble. On the other hand, consideration of the commercial
trading of meat and other aspects of an
agricultural/pastoral economy become important.
Secondly, because of the much greater time depth the
applicability of contemporary ethnographic models to North
American Paleo-Indians, Middle Paleolithic ibex hunters or
even early African hominids is normally regarded as tenuous
at best. In contrast a high degree of cultural continuity
between modern herders of llamas and alpacas and their
prehistoric counterparts is an assumption implicit in much
of the literature on prehistoric Andean economy. This
assumption, however, has never been adequately tested. It
will be one of the goals of this study, therefore, to exam-
ine the hypothesis that such continuity does in fact exist
and can be demonstrated from ethnographic, ethnohistorical
and archaeological sources.
21
Methods
Ideally ethnographic observation of butchery practices
should take place in a situation which is "normal" for the
participants and unbiased by the observer's presence and
expectations. In the case of an Andean pastoral community
this optimum observational situation would occur when a com-
munity member spontaneously decided to slaughter and butcher
a llama or alpaca without the ethnographer ever expressing
prior interest in such activity. However, due to a multi-
tude of factors affecting the diet of Andean pastoralists
such a procedure proved to be impractical for my research.
Al though llama and al paca meat constitutes the maj or source
of animal protein for contemporary Andean pastoralists, and
the entire camelid group played the same role during recent
archaeological times in the southern sierra, meat comprises
a very small percentage of the total diet of an Andean
patoral community. The diet of the camelid herders of
has been observed to rely heavily on vegetable pro-
ducts traded up from lower altitudes. Families of humble
resources normally consumed only 3 to 4 alpacas per annum,
while more comfortable families slaughtered a maximum of one
alpaca per month (Flores Ochoa, 1968:41). A similar low
level of meat consumption was observed a1'Jlong alpaca herders
in the area (Gursky, 1970:131), and my initial obser-
vations in the La Raya and Tuqsa areas confirmed the same
22
phenomenon.
Therefore, due to time constraints it was decided to
forego the optimum, unbiased situation and to employ a pro-
cedure that would minimize the number of uncontrolled vari-
ables in the butchery process and maximize the number of
observations. The resulting "controlled consumption experi-
ments" proceded as follows:
1) the purchase of an alpaca by me in a native community;
2) the donation of the alpaca to a family in order for it
to be sl aughtered and consumed "como de costumbre" (in
the traditional manner) with the proviso that the fam-
ily tie up their dog(s) and return all bones, fractured
or not, to me in a plastic gunny sack which I provided;
3) observation and photography of the process of butchery
and consumption over a period of 4 to 7 days. Observa-
tion was often coupled with interview concerning why a
particular action was performed;
4) the reconstruction of these bones with water-soluble,
white glue in the laboratory at La Raya.
These controlled consumption experiments were conducted four
times: once in the Cooperativa Huaycho, twice in the commun-
ity of Tuqsa, and once at Tambo on the property of IVITA, La
23
Raya. In addition to these observations from the beginning
to the end of process I was able to observe the
slaughter and dismemberment of two other alpacas in Huaycho
and over 30 llamas, alpacas and paco-vicunas in La Raya.
The following description is an ideal composite of
butchery in the southern sierra drawn from these
various observations. As in any culturally governed work
task both social context and individual style may vary some
of the more subtle elements; however this description con-
forms to the standard pattern. Exceptions to the standard
pattern will be noted as applicable.
Butchery Personnel and Tools
The entire butchery operation can be performed by one
lone man, although the usual number seems to be two -- a
principal male butcher and a butchery partner 0r assistant.
The principal butcher takes charge of the slaughter and
later butchers either the anterior or posterior half of the
. ,
an 1m a ... , while the partner (often his wife) takes charge of
butchering the other half. However, if the number of people
present and the occasion permit, as many as 4 or 5 may par-
ticipate in different phases of the butchery. Children
quite often assist in the less muscular activities.
24
The principal instrument that is used during the ini-
tial butchery process is any metal knife that happens to be
available, generally with a total length of 15-25 cm. and of
the inexpensive variety that can be purchased in local mark-
ets for less than $1.00. The knife or knives is constantly
resharpened on surrounding stones during the approximately 1
hour operation. A wedge-shaped stone called a k'achina rumi
a ~ i . S O may be utilized for one isolated task of the dismember-
ITent process which will be described below. The k'achina
rumi is a crude stone some 10-15 cm. wide and 15-20 cm.
long, slightly resembling a "proto-cleaver" in shape. I
observed three of these stones, and none of them appeared to
be modified in any way, but rather were opportunistic finds
of the desired shape and weight. Interview with the butch-
ers confirmed that intentional working of k'achina rumi is
unknown .
Butchery Locale
After selecting an animal for slaughter the animal may
be killed on the spot or carried nearer to the site of con-
sumption, often into the walled kancha (patio) of the
herder's house. In any case all parts of the carcass even-
tually arrive at the site of consumption.
25
Slaughter
Although the actual killing of the animal is not nor-
mally considered as a causative factor in the differential
representation of body parts or other faunal phenomena
observed in archaeological samples, the killing of Andean
camel ids is of some ethnographic interest as well as being
an important datum in continuity between modern
butchery practices and the archaeological record. A full
description of the three methods of camelid slaughter
observed in the southern sierra is therefore warranted.
1) Ventral throat slit: In this method the animal is
laid on its left side and its feet are tied together at the
level of the metapodial condyles (right front leg over right
rear leg over left front leg over left rear leg). Its neck
is positioned over a pan or bowl or sometimes a depression
in the earth. The principal butcher kneels behind the
animal's neck while a helper holds its mouth closed and
presses the snout tightly to the ground. The butcher then
quickly saws through the ventral side of the neck with a
knife, cutting through the trachea and esophagus, and
finally severs the spinal cord by cutting between the atlas
and the occipital condyles. When the incision is complete
the neck is bent backward and all possible blood is col-
lected in the container (Plate 5).
26
It should be noted that the act of severing the spinal
cord may leave cut marks on the ventral surface of both the
atlas and the occipital condyles, but as will be seen below
the presence of such marks does not necessarily indicate
this type of slaughter.
The ventral throat slit is utilized by the herders in
the area of La Raya, in many of the more accul turated areas
along the main highway between Cuzco and Puno, and according
to informants from that region in many of the Aymara-
speaking parts of the Department of Puno.
2) Dorsal stab: In this method of sacrifice the animal
--
is left standing while being held around the neck by the
butcher's assistant. The butcher holds the animal by one
ear in order to steady the head, and then abruptly stabs it
dorsally between the atlas and the occipital condyles with a
small, very sharp dagger, severing the spinal cord (Plate
6). If the dorsal stab method is not precisely executed it
may require multiple stabbings and leave cut marks on the
dorsal surface of the atlas and/or the occipital condyles,
but if correctly executed the blade passes cleanly between
the two bones, the animal dies instantly and drops to the
ground having suffered very little. However, a certain
degree of skill is required in order to sever the spinal
cord in one blow, and for this reason the dorsal stab method
27
is normally not used by ordinary herders in the southern
sierra. This method is commonly employed by "maestros" in
the slaughter houses of Sicuani, Santa Rosa, N u ~ o a , Ayaviri,
etc., because of its efficiency in despatching a large
number of animals in a short time without spilling their
blood. The dorsal stab method does not require tying up the
animals and allows them to be immobilized by one or two men
while the rest of the butchery, including a ventral slitting
of the throat is reserved for later. Most herders are fami-
liar with this method and are able to execute it upon
request, albeit clumsily, but I have never seen the dorsal
stab used spontaneously in a traditional setting in the
southern sierra. However, it has been reported from the
Ayacucho region (Kent Flannery, personal communication) and
I suspect that it may be utilized in the southern sierra in
clandestine activity
, . . . ~
v ... a' pa"'a "'''s+-' ';ng 2
..L. "" 4 \.A "'-'-..L. 1.
3) Ch' ilIa: On page 880 [894J of his Nueva Coronica y
Buen Gobierno Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala illustrates the
traditional Inca method of slaughtering a camelid (Fig. 2-1)
which, according to the accompanying text, involved sticking
the bare hand into the thoracic cavity.3 In the same text
Gu am an Poma indicates that his method of camelid slaughter
was no longer practiced licitly when he was writing in 1614,
but that it was still performed by some shamans. His text
implies that at the time of his writing, "in these Christian
Figure 2-1 Illustration of the ch'il1a from Guaman Poma (1936:
880[894]).
28
29
times", the ventral throat slit was the accepted and licit
method of slaughtering a camelid.
Fortunately for the Andean archaeologist, however,
Christian times appear not to have penetrated completely
into some areas of the Peruvian highlands. The stand ard
mee-hod of camelid slaughter in the puna of the Department of
Cuzco is the ch'illa , which is essentially the same method
described by Guaman Porna for the 16th century. The ch'illa
consists of laying the animal on its left side with either
its four legs tied together as in Guarnan Porna's illustration
or with the hind legs pulled out straight by an assistant
(Plate 7). The principal butcher locates himself behind the
animal, often half kneeling on its right side, makes a small
incision (50-70 cm.) through the skin to the right of the
sternum, directly posterior to the right false rib, plunges
his hand into the abdominal cav ity, through the diaphragm
( laphin) and into the thoracic cav ity (PI ate 8). Here he
manually breaks the ascend ing aorta where it leaves the
heart. The entire process takes and averag e of thirty
seconds from the time of the initial incision to the with-
4
drawal of the hand.
In spite of the rather grotesque impression that it
leaves on the uninitiated observer, the ch'illa seems to be
rather humane, for in none of the 5 occasions that I was
30
able to observe this method of slaughter did the animal seem
to suffer or protest as much as it does in the modern ven-
tral throat slit. In fact when asked why they use this
method of sacrifice herders often refer to this humane
aspect of the ch'illa. I have heard fo ur reasons g iv en for'
the use of the ch'illa:
(1) The animal dies quickly and does not suffer as much.
This reason also has been recorded in the Moquegua
region (Nachtigall,1966:222).
(2) All the blood collects in the thoracic cavity and can
be efficiently scooped out later while losing only a
bare !Il in imum
(3) With this method one does not stain Pachamama, the
earth goddess.
(4) The camelids' neck skin is tough and since good, sharp
knives traditionally have been rare in Andean pastoral
communities, it is much easier to make a small incision
through the soft tissue of the belly than to use the
ventral throat slit method. The toughness of the neck
skin is substantiated by the fact that this skin, espe-
cially from llamas, is saved in order to dry and use
for sandal leather. It was put to the same use during
Inca times (Rowe, 1946:234).
31
This last reason has an interesting archaeological
impl ication. Although I have never seen it done, it seems
entirely feasible that a llama or alpaca could be
slaughtered with the ch'illa using only a small stone
scraper or flake. Unfortunately Guaman Poma does not men-
tion how the incision was made in his illustration, but if
the ch'illa was the common method of camelid sl aughter in
prehistoric times, and reason no.4 was the chief reason for
its use, then perhaps the Andean archaeologist should not
expect to find elaborate butchery tool kits in at least Inca
period sites. Neither a strong blade nor a sharp, pointed
dagger is necessary for the ch'illa as in the ventral throat
slit or in the dorsal stab methods. Bottle glass has been
observed for various other aspects of processing camelid
products in the sierra (Benjamin S. Orlove, personal commun-
ication), but the feasibility of completing the skinning and
butchery with such small tools remains to be experimentally
tested.
The time depth of the ch'illa which is documented in
Guaman Porna's illustration raises a number of additional
questions for the Andean archaeologist. These questions,
although impossible to answer conclusively, deserve comment
and the mention of some contributing evidence.
1) Was the ch'illa the original method of llama and
32
alpaca slaughter in the Andes, and were all other methods
introduced with European contact? The uniqueness of the
ch'illa and its absence in Europe are certainly indications
that this method of slaughter is an indigenous trait and
probably was invented in the Andes sometime after the domes-
tication of the llama and/or the alpaca. The antiquity of
t h ~ ch'illa as an autochthonous Andean practice is corro-
borated by its exclusive use on camelids. To my knowledge
it is never used for the slaughter of European domesti-
cates
5
, and is considered even by herders that do not use it
to be the traditional method, and the one used by the "anci-
anos" (ancients).
Osteological evidence for the existence of the ch'illa
in antiquity, however, is very unlikely to be uncovered.
All three methods of camelid slaughter presently employed in
southern Peru can leave the same cut marks on the atlas and
the occipital condyles after the entire carcass has been
dismembered, and unfortunately the ch'illa incision leaves
no special stamp on the bones.
Ethnohistorical evidence is somewhat more abundant,
albeit clouded by the standard problems inherent in all
early chronicles and the fact that all references to the
killing of camelids occur within the context of religious
sacrifice and idolatry descriptions. Besides Guam an Poma's
33
striking illustration and description of the ch'illa Fray
Pablo Jo s ~ de Arr iag a prov id es us with an even more g rue some
description of llama sacrifice:
They tie the llama to a large rock and make him circle
it five or six times, and later they open him up near
the heart and pull it out, and they normally eat mouth-
fulls of it raw and they sprinkle the blood on the
huaca, and the meat is distributed among the sacrifi-
cial ministers an% the rest of the Indians (Arriaga,
1910: Chap IV, 24).
In contrast to these all too sanguinary descriptions of
Inca sacrifices the other chroniclers either provide no
details as to the specific method of slaughter, or as in the
case of Juan Polo de Ondegardo state that camel ids were
killed by slitting the throat in the same way that the Moors
sacrificed animals:
The manner of killing all animals, whether large or
small, which the Indians used according to their
ancient ceremonies, is the same 70ne the Moors have
which is called the alquible. That is to grasp the
animal above the right foreleg, to turn its eyes toward
the sun, speaking certain words according to the kind
of animal killed . (Polo de Ondegardo, 1916: 15).
A number of later chroniclers copied this passage directly
from Polo de Ondegardo (Acosta, 1954: Book V, Chap. XVIII,
160 ; Morua, 1946: Chap. LII, 168), while Cobo modified it
slightly and added at the end n and these [certain words]
finished, [the priest] slit the throat of the victim" (Cobo,
1964: Book XIII, Chap. XXI, 202). Likewise, one of Peru's
earliest chroniclers, Pedro Cieza de Leon, although not
34
going into any detail, used the Spanish verb "degollar" (to
slit the throat) to describe the Inca method of camelid
sacrifice (Cieza, 1967: Chap. XXX, 104). Finally, it is
interesting that as astute an observer of sacrificial detail
as was Cristobal de Molina del Cuzco failed to record any
details of the method of ritual slaughter. Instead he
focused on the post mortem incineration of the victims and
other accompanying rituals (Molina, 1943). This omission may
mean that the method of slaughter that would have seemed
least noteworthy to Molina and his readers, namely the ven-
tral throat slit, was in common practice in Cuzco. Had the
bizarre and impressive ch'illa been part of the sacrifices
he observed in Cuzco, it seems likely that Molina would have
described it. On the other hand Molina did not arrive in
Cuzco until some 25 years after the conquest when public
sacrifices may have been totally eradicated. In this case
he could not have been an eyewitness to a sacrificial ritual
and his lengthy written descriptions of these ceremonies
would be based completely on interviews.
In summary! the ethnohistorical data, although by no
means crystal clear in this regard, seems to indicate that
both the ch'illa and the ventral throat slit methods were
practiced during Inca times.
2) To what degree did the two methods of slaughter men-
35
tioned in the chronicles function in the religious and secu-
lar contexts? Was the ancient ch'illa used exclusively in
religious contexts or was there an analogous utilitarian
practice in prehistoric times? I was able to observe the
ch'illa in the Department of Cuzco only as an utilitarian
practice, albeit surrounded by a multitude of quasi-magical
and/or religious rituals.
8
Horst Nachtigall, on the other
hand, witnessed in the puna of Moquegua, in both sacred and
profane contexts, a similar method of llama slaughter which
involvej the a ~ t u a l removal of the beating heart from the
thoracic cavity. He affirms that in this area the method is
the same whether performed for ceremonial or utilitarian
reasons (Nachtigall, 1966: 308).
In regard to the status of the ch'illa at the time of
the conquest the chroniclers are again of tenuous assis-
tance. The fanatical Christianizing orientation of the 16th
and 17th century Spaniards focused the attention of the
early historians more on ritual matters than on mundane
aspects of animal husbandry. Both known ethnohistorical
references to the ch'illa are within the context of ritual
sacrifice; however, Gu am an Poma also condemns its use for
utilitarian purposes:
The Indians of this land maintain the ancient law of
idolatry because in order to eat or for ceremony they
kill llamas by opening the heart which is the law of
idolatrous shamans (Guaman Poma, 1936: 881 [895]).
36
Thus it appears that the ch'illa was used during antiquity
as both a ceremonial practice and an everyday butchery
method for the procurement of meat. It is not inconceivable
that its survival to the present day in the more remote
areas of the highlands is due in part to its association
with ritual and to native resistance to Spanish and later
Republican religious prohibitions.
3) Does the present distribution of the ch'illa reflect
its distribution in antiquity and perhaps provide a clue to
its time depth?
Al though I personally have seen the ch'illa performed
only in Tuqsa and Huaycho, I have heard it described by
herders from Pitumarca, Chumbivilcas and the area above
Ollantaytambo. It also is reported to be the common method
employed in Parat:i!a and (Jorge Flores Ochoa, per-
sonal communication) and among the Quechua speaking herders
of the puna of Moquegua (Nachtigall, 1966a:220). In addi-
tion I suspect that it originally had a much wider distribu-
tion in pre-Spanish times. The fact that Guaman Poma men-
tions the ch'illa probably indicates that he was familiar
with it from the region of Lucanas, where he spent much of
his early life, although he could have been exposed to the
practice during his travels through regions, including
Cuzco. Although my investigations were far more limited in
37
the Aymara area (5 informants) it is interesting to note
that according to these informants the ch'illa is practi-
cally unknown in that region and that the ventral throat
slit is the method in common use. During the late 1930's
Tschopik observed the ventral throat slit in common use
around Chucuito. He also stated that a method analogous to
the ch'illa was used on rare occasions (Tschopik, 1946:
562)
There is another scrap of information which suggests
that the ch'illa may have been absent in Aymara territory
since ancient time. Juan Polo de Ondegardo, as observant a
chronicler as we have, spent much of his Peruvian life in
Aymara territory. After his arrival in Peru in 1543 he pos-
sessed an extensive encomienda in Charcas and was appointed
"corregidor" of that region in 1549 by Pedro de la Gasca.
He remained at this post until 1558 when he was appointed
corregidor of Cuzco for a three year term (John H. Rowe,
personal communication). It was during this period in Cuzco
that he wrote on the Inca religion and described the
aforementioned ventral throat sl it method of camelid sacri-
fice which he called the "alquible" (Polo de Ondegardo,
1916: 15). Nowhere does he mention a method resembling the
ch'illa. Since he went to the trouble of describing the
"alquible" in detail, it seems likely that he would have
mentioned the ch'illa if he had observed it either in
38
Charcas or during his stay in Cuzco.
As inconclusive as such sparse evidence may be, it is
worth suggesting that the practical absence of the ch'illa
in modern Aymara territory in Peru perhaps indicates that
this method of slaughter is no more ancient than Inca times,
was introduced into areas that the Incas conquered, and had
a less than indelible impact on the fiercely independent
herders of the Collao. Alternately the modern absence of
the ch'illa in Aymara territory and its continued use in
Quechua zones may reflect a traditional ethnic difference in
slaughter methods between these two areas. Such an areal
difference could antedate the Inca state by centuries or
even millenia. Of course, both of these hypotheses may be
proven untenable, if ethnographic accounts of the ch'illa
among Aymara-speaking herders of Peru, Bolivia or Chile are
reported in the future.
In concluding this section it should be emphasized that
whatever may be the significance of these rather tenuous
speculations concerning the origin, function and distribu-
tion of the ch'illa, the link between the modern practice
and its counterpart in the ethnohistorical past appears to
be quite strong. Such a link is of obvious importance in the
degree of confidence with which one can interpret archaeo-
logical faunal remains on the basis of ethnoarchaeological
39
data.
Skinning
After the animal has been slaughtered it is rolled on
to its back and one butcher begins to slit the skin along
the ventral midline beginning at the level of the sternum
and cutting toward the neck. This completed, he or his
partner continues the ventral slit backwards from the ster-
num to the anus, cutting off the udder (nuftu) or the male
genitalia in the process. The udder, like most other members
which are removed later, is then hung over a wall to keep it
clean and away from dogs.
A cut is made on the posterior surface of the right
forleg through the articulation between the carpals and the
proximal end of the metacarpal, and then the metacarpal is
bent forward breaking the joint so that it hangs loose
(Plate 11). The same procedure is followed by the butchery
partner for the right rear leg (Plate 12).
The precise level at which this cut is made is subject
to some variation, although all butchers claim to be follow-
ing traditional rules that they learned as children.
ers Tuqsa state that the ideal is to cut between the
two layers of carpals/tarsals leaving a layer of these bones
40
both on the distal end of the radius-ulna (or tibia) and a
layer on the proximal ends of the cannon bones (Fig.2-2, cut
A). On the other hand some butchers from Huaycho adamantly
insist that tradition only dictates dividing the tarsals in
this way and that both layers of carpals should remain with
the metacarpal (Fig.2-2, cut B). Still another butcher from
Huaycho claims that it is customary to cut beneath both the
carpals and the tarsals, thus leaving the proximal ends of
the cannons clean (Fig.2-2, cut C). Depending upon the
treatment of the adjacent longbone in the processes of cook-
ing and consumption these variations in butchery may be a
factor in the preservation of these carpals and tarsals in
the ground, and ultimately in their representation in the
archaeological sample.
Having completed the above, incisions are then made
from these carpal/tarsal breaks along the insides of the
right legs to the midline incision. The skin on the right
legs is then pulled away from the underlying flesh using a
knife and tugging. The skin is pulled away from the body by
intermittently using a knife to loosen muscle attachments
and stretching the skin tight and hitting it with a clenched
fist where it is attached to the body. In this manner the
skin is freed entirely from the right side and from the
right legs.
I _ __ I .
RAOIUS-UL:NA
r (
Figure 2-2 Alternate methods of separating the lower limbs from
the upper limbs.
41
42
The animal is then rolled over exposing its left side
and the entire precess is repeated until the whole carcass
except for the neck and head have been peeled, and the
animal lies naked upon its own skin.
Eviseration
An incision is made in the belly which allows the vis-
cera to pop out. As the butcher's partner begins to remove
and arrange the digestive system the principal butcher con-
tinues the incision craniad and saws through the cartilage
(k'apa) to the right of the sternum (qhawin). He continues
this cut around the cranial end of the sternum and cuts
through the costal cartilage to the left of sternum. The
sternum along with the accompanying abdominal muscle is
removed as one package and is hung over a wall.
This exposes all the internal organs from the esophagus
to the colon. The esophagus is tied off at the point where
it leaves the neck and at the point where it joins the
stomach, and then is cut craniad to these ties. This pro-
cedure prevents the thoracic organs and the meat from being
spoiled by the contents of the digestive system.
At this point the heart is normally slit and the last
remaining blood squeezed into the thoracic cavity. The neck
43
vessels may also be rubbed to push blood into the chest.
The heart, liver and the lungs are then cut loose and hung
over a wall.
The partially coagulated blood that has collected in
the thoracic cavity is scooped out using a small bowl, cup
or cupped hands and deposited in a pot or basin. Care is
taken to remove all the blood that is possible from the
thorax by wiping it out with a cloth. This blood will be
utilized later for blood sausage, (yawarsalchi), which also
1n
makes use of the large intestine as a casing. tV
A helper, usually a woman, then cuts the
digestive system loose from its vertebral and
deposits it upon a "manta", a piece of plastic sheeting, or
a special skin called a p'aqlachu. This bundle of viscera
is carried some distance away from the carcass
s
often to a
stream, and cleaned. All the viscera is eventually con-
sumed, except for the pancreas which is referred to
disparagingly as the michi k'aranchan and is always thrown
away or given to a dog or cat.
Dismemberment
When all the internal organs, except the kidneys, and
the blood have been removed, the carcass is cut up into pri-
44
mary packages of convenient sizes which are later divided
further for the process of consumption.
(1) Brisket: As described in the previous section, the
sternum with the accompanying muscle is the first meat/bone
package to be removed (Fig. 2-3a).
(2) Forelimbs: A slit is made dorsally through the mus-
cle between the last and the penultimate ribs on the right
side. By cutting and prying this operation continues around
each rib head at its p o i ~ t of articulation with the ver-
tebral centrum.
11
When the head of rib no.2 has been disar-
ticulated another slit is made ventrally between the first
and second ribs. Then an easy cut is made through the
attachment between the cranial border of the scapula and the
vertebral column. This liberates the right ribs, scapula,
humerus and radius-ulna as one meat/bone package (mak'i)
which is then hung over a wall (Fig. 2-3b). The scapula,
humerus and radius-ulna come out unscathed from this opera-
tion.
This particular step in the buchery process leaves the
first rib (waqaqsun) attached to its point of articulation
between the seventh cervical vertebra CC
7
) and the first
throracic vertebra (T
1
), and the last rib (sulka waqtan)
attached between T11 and T12. This procedure is followed
because the heads of these two ribs are locked tightly into
4f
Figure 2-3
,
e
d
fA


c _.
a
9


Sequence of dismemberment of camelid carcass in the southern highlands of Peru.
.l:'
Ul
46
their vertebral articulations and according to camelid
butchers are practically impossible to remove without break-
ing.
(3) Hindlimbs: While the right forelimb is being
removed the butchery partner removes the right hind limb
along with the right innominate. This is accomplished by
sawing through the pubic symphysis with a knife in young
animals in which the symphysis is not completely fused, or
if the animal is an adult with a strongly fused symphysis,
by laying a knife blade along the length of the symphysis
and hitting it with a large stone (k'achina rumi) (Plate
13). Then, by using the leg as a lever, cutting between the
sacrum and the ilium, and severing the few remaining muscu-
lar attachments, the entire leg is pried free (Fig. 2-3c).
the femur and tibia are unscathed in this process. The
innominate may corne out complete or slightly fractured
depending on the ease with which the symphysis is broken.
tradition dictates, however, that these bones and generally
all others should pass through this process of initial
dismemberment essentially intact. Herders often mention
that breaking bones during the butchery will bring bad luck
to their herd.
(4 and 5) The same process described in 2 and 3 are
repeated with the left limbs.
47
(6) Neck: If the neck (kunka) has not yet been skinned
along with the rest of the body and the limbs, it is done
now by making a ventral midline incision as far as the atlas
and then peeling the skin back by using a knife and tugging.
If the animal is a llama or huarizo (llama-alpaca hybrid),
the skin of the neck is cut away from the rest of the hide
to be used in the manufacture of sandals, lassos, llama
boots (llama p'olqo), etc.
A cut is made between the first and second thoracic
vertebrae which leaves T1 and the first rib (waqaqsun) with
the neck. Then, if the animal has been slaughtered by the
ventral throat slit or by the dorsal stab method, the inci-
sion between the atlas and the occipital condyles is com-
pleted and the neck is removed as one package and the head
as another (Figs. 2-3d and 2-3e). If the ch'illa has been
employed, the same incision is made from start to finish.
Thus, the same cut marks may appear on the ventral surface
of the atlas and the occipital condyles in all animals
regardless of the method of slaughter.
(1) Thoracic and lumbar vertebrae: Depending on the
personal style of the butcher the entire rigid column from
2
T to the sacrum may be left connected or a cut may be made
between T11 and T12 which separates it into two packages: a)
the ffaffu wasan, consisting of T2 through T11 and, b) the
48
p'alta wasan, consisting of T12, the floating ribs, the lum-
bar vertebrae, the kidneys and the sacrum. The caudal ver-
tebrae generally remain with the hide, but may be included
with the p'alta wasan, if the butcher is particularly neat
(Fig 2-3f) .
(8) Cannon bones: The last step in the dismemberment
process is to cut free the lower' legs which include the can-
nons (chuqchuku) and the phalanges from the skin and to lay
out the skin to dry in the sun with the wet side up. These
lower legs are put together and stored in any convenient
place (Fig. 2-3g).
Comparative Dismemberment
It should be emphasized that the above procedure of
dismemberment is not the only method of cutting up a large
mammal. Llama and alpaca butchery as observed in the south-
ern sierra of Peru conforms rather strictly to a series of
culturally prescribed rules, proceeds through the eight
aforementioned steps, and unvaryingly produces 12 or 13
meat/bone
- - - ,-- - --
While basic mammalian symmetry dictates
that the butchery of most large animals conform to the gen-
eral camelid pattern, there exist many differences in detail
in other areas. Other reported butchery procedures of large
mammals contrast in both the number and kinds of steps, in
49
both the number and kinds of meat/bone packages, and in the
ancillary procedures which accompany the dismemberment. No
other reported butchery procedure seems to emphasize so much
that bones remain intact throughout the and
camelid butchery appears to be unique in the care with which
the rib heads are removed from the vertebrae. A contrasting
example of rib treatment is the butchery of wildebeeste as
practiced by the !Kung Bushmen of Africa in which an axe is
employed to chop the ribs near their vertebral
attachments and to smash the anterior vertebral column both
longitudinally and horizonally (Yellen, ms.:16).
Llama/alpaca butchery is also unique in the treatment
of the pelvis. Other authors describe the head of the femur
being separated from the acetabulum by means of skillful
incisions through the suspensory ligaments, a procedure
which leaves the pelvis as one unit. Llama/alpaca butchers
tend to conceptualize the pelvis as being composed of two
innominates which need only be split apart in order to free
the entire hindlimb package. However, this does not appear
to be as much a function of camelid anatomy as it is a cul-
turally dictated pattern. In contrast to the domesticated
camelids the butchery of the wild guanaco by the ana of
Tierra del Fuego has been described as involving the separa-
tion of one femur from the while the other is
left attached to the entire pelvis (Bridges, 1948:256).
50
The number of meat/bone packages produced from a
butchery appears to be chiefly a function of the size of the
animal and what is manageable for the hunter to carry home,
or for the cook to store and manipulate conveniently. Yel-
len describes 21 packages resulting from a wildebeeste
weighing some 400 lbs. (Yellen! ms.:14-18), while the weight
of the bones of a 2000 lbs. bison proved to be so unmanage-
able for the North American Plains Indians that most were
discarded at the site after having been stripped of their
meat (Wheat, 1972:99). The butchery of the domesticated
Andean camelids produces 12 or 13 packages, but this seems
to be not as much a function or size as it is of cultural
rules and the minimal carrying distance. The wild guanacos
of Tierra del Fuego while weighing a bit more than the aver-
age adult llama were butchered by the Ona in a slightly dif-
ferent fashion:
Unless in a violent hurry, the Ona divided a guanaco in
a particular manner. The brisket, which was generally
regarded as the hunter's portions, came off first.
Then the ribs, each side with its shoulder and front
leg attached, were removed close to the backbone, leav-
ing that still fixed to the neck. Next one of the hind
legs was cut off like a ham. The hind leg remained
attached to the trunk, which when separated from the
neck just where the second rib would have been, was the
heaviest portion. The animal was thus divided into
five sections, not counting the brisket. The second
heaviest section was the piece that included the head,
neck and backbone (Bridges, 1948:256-257).
As fortunate as we are to have this account of aboriginal
guanaco butchery, it is regrettable that Lucas Bridges was
51
not more of an anatomist. On the basis of this passage and
others I have reconstructed what I infer to be the guanaco
meat/bone packages (Fig.
" 1.,
.::::-'t J However", it is difficult to
determine exactly where the vertebral column was divided on
the basis of this description. Likewise, Bridges makes no
specific reference to the cannon bones and whether they were
cut away from the upper limbs during the skinning as in
llama/alpaca butchery or left with them. Somewhat later in
the same hunting-butchery description Bridges does shed some
light on this problem:
It was, therefore, with surprise that I saw Kankoat,
having finished cutting up the two guanaco, pack every
scrap of meat, the skin, blood and even the feet [my
emphasis] into two huge bundles in the manner just
described (Bridges, 1948:257).
This implies that the Ona normally left the feet at the kill
site and therefore that the feet were separated from the
upper limbs. Of course; it is difficult to know if Bridges
included both hooves and cannons in his term "feet" or sim-
pI y the hooves.
It is clear from Bridges' description, however, that
the Ona butchery of a guanaco resulted in fewer meat/bone
packages arriving at the site of consumption than is the
case of modern Andean butchery.
..... e



c

d


t
Figure 2-4 Sequence of dismembermHnt of guanaco carcass by the Dna of Tierra del Fuego.

Vl
I\)
53
Preparation for Cooking
Whereas the previous process of llama/alpaca dismember-
ment involved very little actual breakage of bone, nearly
all the bones are broken during the subsequent process of
cooking preparation in which meat/bone packages are subdi-
vided into more manageable sized portions. During different
phases of this process the butcher may employ a knife, a
small hatchet or short-handled adze, a k'achina rumi and a
stone anv il The fr actur ing of bones is ;;:1 ways per formed on
the flat surface of an anvil whether the hatchet or the
k'achina rumi is the striking implement.
The responsibility for meat preparation does not seem
to be controlled by rigid sex roles. Whether a man or woman
performs this task depends on individual families and cir-
cumstances.
Head
As much of the wool as possible is cut away from the
head with a knife and then the head is placed in or held
above a fire in order to singe off any remaining fibers. An
incision is made through the facial ~ u s c l e s on either side
of the temporal-mandibular joint and extending some 3-5 cm.
beyond it in the direction of the ear. The butcher then
hooks one end of a 30-50 cm. long loop of llama rope, called
a k'aqlla k'aqchana waskha over the mandible at the point of
54
the canine diastema constriction and the other end around
the ball of his f o o t ~ While pulling back on the skull with
two hands the foot is depressed, breaking the remaining
attachments at the temporal-mandibular joint (Plate 14).
In order to separate the mandible from its articulation
the cook pushes inward on the vertical rami until the den-
taries separates at the symphysis or near it (Fig. 2-5).
Unless the animal is very young this break usually occurs to
one side of the symphysis rather than right at it. The
second and third breaks are produced with a hatchet and
separate the vertical rami from the horizontal rami. The
tongue is cut out of the mandible with a knife and then
divided into three portions of equal size.
The cranium is next divided sagittally with the hatchet
by first breaking the bone along the ventral midline start-
ing at the occipital condyles and continuing anteriorly
through the premaxilla. The cranium is then turned over and
the same process continued dorsally along the sagittal crest
through the facial bones. Each one of these sagittal sec-
tions is divided into five pieces of approximately equal
size by employing four cuts:
1) the snout is split dorsoventrally in front of the cheek
teeth;
55
o
T ~
3
Figure 2-5 Sequence of mandible fractures.
Figure 2-6 Sequence of cranium fractures.
56
2) the braincase is split dorsoventrally midway between
the orbit and the occipital condyle;
3) the occiptial-temporal region is split anteroposteri-
orly at the level of the external auditory meatus;
4) the maxilla with its cheek teeth is split away from the
orbit, frontal and zygoma by means of a diagonal blow
(Fig. 2-6).
The mandible and cranial fragments, including the brain por-
tions, are normally boiled along with the elbows, knees and
feet.
Axial Skeleton
(1) Vertebrae: All the vertebrae receive approxiately
equal treatment regardless of their position on the column.
However, the lumbar vertebrae are favored as they are sur-
rounded by more tender meat and the cervical vertebrae are
considered to be tough. In fact the neck is considered the
most difficult part of the entire carcass to butcher and is
used in a Quechua wedding ceremony as a test of the domestic
prowess of the bride (Percy Paz, personal communication).
Normally the individual vertebrae are separated from
one another by cutting with a knife between the vertebral
centra. Then, depending upon the style of the butcher and
the number of people to be fed the vertebrae may be split
57
into 2 pieces either lateromedially or anteroposteriorly.
This is done by first making an incision through the meat
all the way around the bone and
_.&.._,: , .. .:--
;::''''L .l..l\..l..115 this "guid e
line" with the k'achina rumi (Plate 15). Although no firm
rules could be determined from the observed butcheries, the
tendency is to break the cervical vertebrae lateromedially
in the dorsoventral plane (Fig. 2-7). These vertebrae are
rather large and would be cumbersome as undivided chunks of
meat. The lumbar vertebrae tend to be broken anteropos-
teriorally in the dorsoventral plane and to have their dor-
sal spines snapped off. The dorsal spines of the thoracic
vertebrae also generally are broken off, but their centra
are normally left unbroken. There is, however, a good deal
of variation around these general tendencies.
The sacrum is divided into three sections by hitting it
with the k'achina rumi or hatchet (Fig. 2-8).
(2) Ribs: Although the ribs are treated with extreme
care during the dismemberment process they are handled very
casually during consumption. They are normally roasted
directly over the fire and eaten much like spareribs. They
may be left whole or snapped in two by the person eating
them.
(3) Sternum: The brisket muscle is cut away from the
sternum and saved for later roasting. The sternal meat
58
Figure 2-7 Fracture of cervical vertebra.
Figur2 2-8 Sequence of sacrum fracture.
59
package is cut into convenient chunks along the lines of the
individual sternabrae and later boiled.
Interestingly there is a bit of folklore concerning the
individual sternabrae which dictates that only unmarried
children should eat the most cranial sternabra (hatun
viurana) and the most caudal sternabra (huch'uy viurana).
It is said that if a married adult eats either of these
pieces he (she) will soon be widowed.
(4) Scapula: The scapula is stripped of any meat which
is easily cut away with a knife and then is broken into five
portions of approximately equal size by means of four blows
with the k'achina rumi:
1) the first blow is across the neck usually above the
acromion process and separates the glenoid cavity and
coracoid process from the flat part of the bone;
2) the flat "paddle" is split in half anteroposteriorly;
3) each of the remaining portions are then bifurcated in
turn (Fig. 2-9).
These pieces are boiled.
(5) Innominate: The head of the femur is separated
from the innominate by carefully cutting between it and the
acetabulum. The innominate is then divided into 5 or 6
Figure 2-9
Figure 2-10
3
1
Sequence of scapula fracture.
1
1
Sequence of innominate fracture.
60
61
sections as shown in Figure 2-10 by using the hatchet or
k'achina rumi. Whether the acetabulum itself is damaged in
the process depends on the skill or the butcher. The plan
seems to be to leave it intact, but the butcher's aim is not
always precise.
Long bones
The bones of the limbs are of special interest to the
zooarchaeologist because they are most diagnostic in terms
of species and age determination and in the estimation of
minimum numbers of individuals. Hence it is interesting to
note that llama/alpaca butchers treat these individual ana-
tomical elements in distinct ways governed by definite rules
and do not lump all leg bones into the same category. How-
ever, one general rule seems to exist which calls for the
breaking of all long bones, except the cannons, into four
basic chunks: the proximal end, two s h ~ f t fragments, and the
distal end (depending on the bone, extremities may be broken
further) This is normally accomplished by first making
"guide line" incisions through the meat and breaking the
bone at this line with a hatchet or k'achina rumi. Gen-
erally the hatchet is preferred for the longitudinal frac-
turing of the extremities, while the kfachina rumi is used
for crosswise fracturing of the shafts. The treatment
received by individual long bones is described as follows:
62
(1) Humerus: The bulk of the upper forelimb muscle
mass is removed from the humerus and set aside. The humerus
is separated from the radius-ulna by cutting through the
muscular attachments around the semi-lunar notch. Then
using the hatchet or kfachina rumi the humerus is broken
into 5 or 6 chunks in the order illustrated in Figure 2-11.
Depending on the style of the butcher the head may be
cleaved longitudinally once or twice, but it is always split
at least once, in order to expose the cancellous bone and
grease. The head of the humerus is reputed to be especially
flavorful when boiled in soups or stews, and its importance
is reflected in the special name, malsana, it is given by
llama/alpaca butchers. The distal end of the humerus is
normally not split, because of its denser nature and low fat
content.
(2) Radius-Ulna: The radius-ulna is rather lean in
regards to meat and is made largely of compact bone. It is
broken crosswise, therefore, into the four standard long
bone joints as shown in Figure 2-12. Neither the proximal
nor the distal ends were ever observed to be fractured long-
itudinally by modern Andean butchers. However, it should be
noted that due to the particular morphology of the fused
camelid radius-ulna the proximal fracture produces two diag-
nostic fragments. The distal end usually is left with at
least one layer of carpals still attached to it (see Fig.
QD
1-
2(n
63
Figure 2-11
Sequence of humerus fracture.
Figure 2-12
Sequence of radius-ulna
fracture.
64
2-2) and no attempt is made to remove these bones during the
pre-cooking preparation. The distal end of the radius-ulna
and the attached carpals seem to be viewed as one single
unit which is referred to simply as the elbow, maki qhonqo.
This folk anatomy classification is corroborated by the
butchers' inability to describe the individual or collective
carpasl any more specifically than "huesecitos" (little
bones) and by the fact that the maki qhonqo remains intact
until it is actually consumed. (See Appendix 1 for the
entire Quechua bone taxonomy).
(3) Femur: The femur and tibia are separated by cut-
ting with a knife between their articular surfaces and
through the posterior muscles. The patella is cut away from
the distal end of the femur and set aside, and the bulk of
the posterior meat is removed from the femur.
The femur has a good deal of cancellous bone in both
the proximal and distal ends, and therefore is broken into
at least six chunks in the manner illustrated in Figure 2-
13. The proximal end is split longitudinally at least once
separating the greater trochanter from the head and neck.
The head also may be separated from the rest of the proximal
end depending on style. The distal end is then fractured
longitudinally between the two condyles. Finally three
crosswise fractures with the k'achina rumi separate the ends
65
Figure 2-13 Sequence of femur fracture.
Figure 2-14 Sequence of tibia fracture.
66
from the shaft fragments. This particular order seems to
facilitate holding the bone firmly while cleaving through
the ends, as well as the production of chunks of approxi-
mately equal size.
(4) Tibia: The tibia is divided into a minimum of 5
chunks as illustrated in Figure 2-14 by first breaking the
proximal end longitudinally into two or three pieces with a
hatchet and then separating the distal end and two shaft
fragments with the k'achina rumi. In a fashion similar to
the treatment of the radius-ulna, the astragalus and cal-
caneum (and sometimes the other tarsals) are normally left
attached to the distal tibia and are viewed as being one
unit with it. Together they are referred to as the knee,
chaki qhonqo.
(5) Cannons and phalanges: The lower limbs including
the cannons and the feet are first laid in a fire in order
to singe off all the hair. The tylopod hooves (each con-
taining 2 first, 2 second and 2 third phalanges) are then
removed by cutting between the meatapodial condyles and the
proximal articular surfaces of the first phalanges. The
phalanges are undamaged in this process and are set aside
for later boiling.In contrast to the upper limb bones, the
cannons are normally divided into only two portions by
breaking the midshaft crosswise with the k'achina rumi
67
(Plate 16).
In contrast to the clean, idealized breaks of the long
bones illustrated in Figures 2-11 to 2-14 photgraphs of
reconstructed camelid long bones (Plates 17-20) show a good
many shaft fragments which are not accounted for in the
schematic dra\.[ings. These smaller fragments are resul ts of
secondary fracturing along the axis of the bone. They are
produced solely by the primary blows, and are not the resul t
of striking the primary fragments further after the intial
fracturing. In some cases this longitudinal shaft fractur-
ing may be the resul t of the longitudinal fracturing of the
ends of the bone. However, the longitudinal fracturing seen
in the distal humerus sbaft (Plate 17) and in the distal
tibia shaft (Plate 20) cannot be accounted for in this way.
It is interesting to note that in all cases in which
the epiphysis is fractured longitudinally it is by a blow
struck before the epiphysis is separated from the shaft.
This practice is probably a simple function of the handle
which the shaft provides when striking the epiphysis, but it
may also be a clue to the manner in which putative "tools"
with spiral shaft fractures are produced.
The longitudinal fracturing of the ends of some long
bones (proximal humerus, proximal and distal femur, proximal
tibia) is clearly related to the cancellous nature and fat
68
content of these bone portions. The long bone epiphyses
that are not fractured longitudinally are always those which
are denser and do not contain much fat.
Density Determinations
In an attempt to quantify the density of different ele-
ments I performed specific gravity determinations on the
ends of each one of the long bones and some of the small
bones of the extremities. These determinations were con-
ducteds as follows: ten specimens of each bone were col-
12
lected from the" alpaca cemetery" at La Raya. The humerus,
radius-ulna, femur and tibia were cut transversely into
thirds with a hacksaw. The metapoidals were cut in half
across the middle of the shaft.
13
The calcaneum, astragalus
and phalanges were left intact. Each one of these pieces
was weighed and its volume determined by means of water dis-
pI acement A comparison of the mean specific gravities for
these bone portions is presented graphically in Figure 2-15.
It is clear from this diagram that there is a definite
correspondence between density and longitudinal fracturing
of epiphyses.
Cooking and Eating
With the exception of the roasting of ribs and some
Fractured longitudinally
Not fractured longitudinally
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
. 8' -_. ....... -- ---- ..:,.:)X x>=- .. 6:Mt: 8
.81 W. u..t. ........ L- Xft.M :.;>....m:x <'!"m;.:.c @:w..:< (-:&:.a.."'Y. o:-:-:-;-w:: S)2IIm I .6
.4 I r\ 0-, u.a. I.L.t MY!'Wdi Wl'7i'il ---6.4
Figure 2-15 Specific gravity of came1id appendicular bone elements.
'"
I.D
70
internal organs, boiling was observed to be the favored
method of meat cooking. Roasted meat is certainly appreci-
ated when it is served but its preparation seems to be some-
what troublesome and less efficient for daily meals, and it
is therefore reserved for special occasions. The high alti-
tude, difficulty of combustion, and scarcity of good fuels
are probably responsible for this fact. Boiled portions of
meat are commonly served with a number of small potatoes in
a thin soup/stew. The broth which has acquired the flavor
of the boiled meat is normally drunk directly from the bowl
or sometimes with a spoon, and the chunks of meat and pota-
toes picked out and eaten with the hands.
The stress to which such boiled bone is subjected is
very poorly understood. It is clear that as bone is boiled
its organic content is gradually destroyed. The amount of
destruction will depend on the bone element, the degree to
which the bone has been fractured thus exposing the internal
structure, and the cooking time. In herding communities a
joint of meat is normally boiled for four hours or more,
depending on the age of the animal and whether it is a llama
or an alpaca (llamas are reputed to be tougher).
A related factor whose importance is difficult to
assess stems from the high altitude at which Andean pastoral
communities are found. At altitudes over 4,000 meters water
71
boils at slightly more than 85
0C
. instead of the normal
o
100 C. of sea level. This lower temperature may be less
stressful to bone. However, it is unknown whether it is the
temperature, the amount of time in the pot or a combination
of these two factors which is more destructive to bone. The
comparability of boiling a joint of meat for two hours at
sea level at 100
o
C. or for four hours at 4000 m. at 85
0
C.
has never been studied, as far as I know. Until such time
as experimentation is conducted along these lines the Andean
zooarchaeologist should be mindful of the possibility that
high Andean boiling may affect bone differently than boiling
at lower altitudes.
As described in the previous section no special point
is made of extracting the marrow during the meat preparation
stage. Bone grease and marrow certainly are enjoyed as part
of the llama/alpaca bounty and marrow is sucked out of every
nock and cranny during the consumption stage. However,
shaft marrow and grease contained in the cancellous bone at
the ends of the long bones seem to playa role as important
in the flavor of the soup/stew as they do as individual food
objects. Herders claims this soup/stew flavor factor as
being or prime importance in the longitudinal fracturing of
the proximal and distal femora, the proximal tibiae and
especially the proximal humeri.
72
This role of marrow utilization contrast with other
reported ethnographic uses of this nutrient. !Kung hunters
find the marrow from the wildebeeste cannon bones to be such
a tempting delicacy that they stop midway through the
dismemberment process to split the cannons down their whole
lengths and to eat the marrow. As in the Andes the !Kung do
use marrow to enrich their stews, but its is first extracted
from the bones during the preparation stage, set aSide, and
only added after the meat has been boiled (Yellen, ms.:28).
The Calling Lake Cree of Alberta are reported to employ an
elaborate process of bone grease extraction which virtually
demolishes all of the moose's axial skeleton and all of the
long bone shafts, while surprisingly leaving the longbone
extremities intact. The marrow extracted from the long
bones and the fat collected from boiling all the bone frag-
ments is then put into a storage container so that it can
eventually be consumed (Bonnichsen, 1973:11).
The use of marrow in the diet and the damage that bones
sustain during its extraction appear to be a major factor in
the post-consumption differential representation of bone
elements, and hence their probable survival in an archaeo-
logical site. By combining the butchery and consumption
data that are available for the llama/alpaca, the wilde-
beeste (Yellen, ms.) and the moose (Bonnichsen, 1973) it is
possible to compare the numbers of fragments of each of the
73
appendicular bone elements that are normally produced within
three separate cultural-faunal contexts (see Table 1).13
Bone Element Llama/ alpaca Wildebeeste Moose
Quechua !Kung Cree
Scapula 2
( C) ? ?
Pr. Humeri 4+ (L) 6+ (L)
*
Ds. Humeri 2 ( C) 2 or 4 (C or L) 2 ( C)
Pr. Rad ius UI nae 4 ( C) 4 (L)
2 ( C)
Ds. Rad iusUI nae 2
( C) 4 (L)
2 ( C)
Carpals 14 (N) ? 0 **
Pro Metacarpals 2
( C) 0 *** 2 ( C)
Ds. Metacarpals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C)
1 st Phalanges 8
(N) 16
(L)
0 **
2nd Phalanges 8
(N) 16
(L)
0 **
3rd Phalanges 8
(N)
8
(N)
0
**
Ds. Metatarsals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C)
Pro Metatarsals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C)
Tarsals 10
(N) ? 0 **
Ds. Tibiae 2 ( C) 2 or4+( C or L) 2 ( C)
Pro Tibiae 4+ (L) 6+ (L)
2 ( C)
Ds. Femora 4+ (L) 6+ (L) 2 ( C)
Pro Femora 4+ (L) 6+ (L) 2 ( C)
Acetabula 2 ( C) ? 2 ( C)
Total 86+ 76+ 24
Table 1
!he number of appendicular bone fragments produced by the
butchery and consumption of one animal and expected t ~ be
found at the living site (? = data missing or ambiguous ; C
= crosswise fracture; L = longitudinal fracture; N = no
fracture; * = pulverized in the production of bone grease;
** = left in the field with intestines; *** = split longitu-
dinally for the extraction of marrow and discarded at the
kill site.)
These data demonstrate striking differences in the number of
fragments that would be expected from the butchery and con-
sumption of one animal in each of these settings. The two
74
major factors responsible for these differences in expected
frequencies are the longitudinal fracturing of epiphyses
(and first and second phalanges in the case of the wilde-
beeste), and the discarding of bones in the field. Of
course, a number of later taphonomic factors would also
influence the survival of these elements in an archaeologi-
cal site, but the intitial effect of butchery and consump-
tion fracture on the differential representation of bone
elements should be clear.
It is important that the zooarchaeologist recognize the
role of culturally dictated butchery/consumption practices
in the production of a faunal sample, and that some attempt
be made to correlate the manner in which an element is frac-
tured with its representation in the sample. The aforemen-
tioned ethnoarchaeological observations indicate that simple
comparisons of numbers of represented elements in a sample
are by themselves insufficient for the reconstruction of
human behavior, since these numbers are affected by the way
in which a bone was fractured or left intact. The longitu-
dinal fracturing of long bone extremities both decreases the
size of recognizable fragments and increases the exposure of
the more fragile, internal, spongy bone to the stresses of
the depositional environment. These factors in turn
decrease a bone's chance of survival in the ground.
75
It is clear, therefore, that ethnozoological observa-
tions from a number of different cultural contexts suggest
that statistical treatment of bone element frequencies from
archaeological sites must be coupled with a thorough under-
standing of bone fracture pattern. Such correlation will be
explored further below.
Summary
This chapter can be best summarized by examination of
Figure 2-16. This diagram illustrates the cultural tapho-
nomic filters which were found to affect camelid bone from
their origin in the living animal to their arrival in the
after-diner garb2ge (post-consumption assemblage). As indi-
cated by the outward pointed arrows the direction of these
filters' influence is generally destructive. The net
result, therefore, is a loss of bone material to the system.
t
deBI rtt:t lun we"JnlnR tJlfi\,lnl
I I
'"'''' -["'""'"
1+

fllACI um:
COOK lilt:
Figure 2-16 Model of cultural taphonomic filters operatfng on came lid bone between
its origin in the living animal until after its consumption
directed arrows indicate a loss of bone to the system).


Chapter 3
ADDITIONAL FACTORS OF CULTURAL TAPHONOMY
The importance of butchery and consumption factors in
the survival of bone cannot be overemphasized. However,
there exist several other factors which, although not
directly associated with butchery and consumption, play
definite roles in the accumulation of bone refuse in Andean
sites. In most cases the magnitude of their influence is
unknown, and in some cases not even the direction of that
influence is clearly understood. Much more work needs to be
done in order to quantify these factors, but in the meantime
it is important at least to note their existence and to
describe their nature.
Implements
The use of bone as a raw material for the manufacture
of utilitarian or ornamental objects has almost entirely
disappeared in the highlands of Peru. Today the only tool
that is consistently made from bone is weaving implement
called a wich'uffa, 1 which is used as a packing tool and to
separate the warp from the weft when producing designs in
the textile. This tools is manufactured in the areas that I
78
visited from a freshly butchered camelid metapodial by chop-
ping off the distal condyles
2
with a knife and then by means
of a half-whittling, half chopping motion working the shaft
to a point. This rough point is then smoothed by abrasion
against a rock. The entire production requires no more than
10 minutes. When in use by a weaver the wich'ufta is grasped
around the proximal shaft and the point inserted behind the
weft thread being worked and packed tight into the warp
(Plate 21).
Interviewed herders and weavers were very particular
concerning the specific kind of metapodial that constituted
the ideal wich'una. Llama metapodials are preferred over
alpacas for strong, long-lasting wich'una which are to be
used for regular weaving jobs, whereas thinner, more deli-
cate vicuna metapodials are preferred for finer work.
Access to vicuna bones, however, has become increasingly
difficult in recent years so the desirability of vicuna
wich'una may be as much a matter of status as it is of util-
ity. Deer metapodials are also said to be desirable, but
they are rare as well.
Weavers claim that the bone must come from an adult
animal, presumably for reasons of length and durability. A
preference also seems to exist for metatarsals over metacar-
pals. In fact one weaver from Huaycho claimed that good
79
wich'uffa are only made from metatarsals of adult females,
although she was unable to explain how deviation from these
criteria would affect the finished implement. Wich'uffa seem
to be in some demand by weavers from lower altitudes who do
not have direct access to large numbers of came1ids. A
herder from Huaycho stated that 10 to 15 years earlier he
was accustomed to collect as many came1id metapodia1s as he
could, work them into wich'uffa and carry them two weeks by
llama train to the annual fair of e1 Senor de Huanca held on
September 14 near P'isaq. Here he would barter his wich'una
with weavers for agricultural goods, fetching in trade an
arroba (25 1bs.) of corn per wich'uffa or its equivalent, and
later pack all the goods he had obtained in trade back to
Huaycho.
If such vertical trading patterns were common in anti-
quity they certainly could have affected the representation
of certain bone elements in archaeological sites at both
levels. Although the number
archaeological record in this way
of
is
metapodia1s lost to the
probably not great,
wich'uffa manufacture and trade should be considered as con-
tributory factors in the representation of bone elements in
Andean sites.
Aside from the formalized wich'uffa tool category I have
seen bone used also for opportunistic implements which
80
involved no modification of the bone. For instance, a bro-
ken long bone shaft may be stuck in a crack in the wall to
provide a useful hanger.
Toys and Games
Camelid astragali are used by modern inhabitants of the
southern sierra in a game of chance and for purposes of
d iv ination. Bot.h in the g a ~ e and
~ -
d iv ination the bone is ... u
tossed into the air and the resul t is read by observing the
side upon which it 1 and s. The game is well known in the
areas which I visited but apparently it is not played very
frequently for most herders that I interviewed were confused
about the rules. This game, called watoq in Quechua or
"burrito" after the name of the bone in Spanish, is
apparently basically the same as "taba" which was popular
among Argentine gauchos and originally introduced from Spain
(Cooper, 1949:513). However, in contrast to the bovine
"taba" which is sometimes plated on either side with metal
cleats, the camel id "burrito" is left completel y unmod ified.
The use of the astragalus for divination is similar but
a number of bones may be used together. Regardless of the
number of bones used, good luck is indicated by the lateral
surface landing upwards and bad luck by the medial surface.
81
Another play oriented use of bone that is common in
llama/alpaca herding communities is the exclusive province
of small children. Modeling themselves on their parents and
older siblings Andean children are often found to "play
alpaca herder" in an analogous fashion to urban children
"playing house or doctor." As part of this play the child
builds a small corral out of stones and populates it with
bone animals (Plate 22). The bones which are selected to
play the roles are quite standardized and most Andeans
recognized their identities. First phalanges are called
paqo (alpaca) and the second phalanges are their offspring.
The astragalus is called asnucha (little burro), the cal-
caneum -is (little dog) and the more stable of the cervical
vertebrae, c
2
_c
6
, are called waka (cow). These bones are
gathered from the area surrounding the herder's house,
installed in the play corral, and pushed around in the
fashion of herd animals. The first phalanges are also
called "soldados" (soldiers) in some parts of the southern
sierra, and may be utilized for war games, if the child is
feeling more militaristic than pastoral.
It would be rather farfet.ched to suggest that such
games affect the representation of bone elements in Andean
sites in any significant way. However, a tendency for small
child to aggregate certain bones, especially first
phalanges, does seem to exist in some modern Andean
82
communities. Also some day in the future, when mere atten-
tion is paid to archaeological bone debris in the Andes and
the study of activity areas has become an established pro-
cedure, some archaeologist may search for ~ model to illuci-
date a strange concentration of phalanges, astragali, cal-
canea and cervical vertebra in his site. For such an
archaeologist I provide this otherwise rather anecdotal
piece of data.
Scav eng er Activ ity
The effect of wild carnivores or rodents on the bone
refuse produced by mod ern /',ndean communi ties seems to be
negligible, and there is no reason to believe that the
situation was markedly different in tte prehistoric past.
Camelid herders are always on the lookout for both pumas
(Felis concolor) and the Andean fox (Dusicyon culpaeus), but
their chief concern is for newborn animals that might be
attacked during the night. Both of these predators are
extremely timid as far as man is concerned and it is highly
unlikely that either would venture into a herder's kancha
(patio) in order to snatch a piece of freshly butchered
meat, let alone processed bone refuse. Similarly the well-
known scavenging activity of the condor (Vultur gryphus) in
the Andes is limited to the carcasses of wild camelids and
83
other vertebrates (Koford, 1957:207), and has no effect on
domestic bone accumulations. The influence of these wild
scavengers may have been slightly more significant before
the domestication of the llama and alpaca; however, I doubt
that it ever approached the magnitude of influence docu-
mented in other parts of the world, such as Africa.
The effect of indigenous rodents on Andean faunal
assemblages also is assumed to be of minimal immportance.
However, this assumption is based entirely on the extreme
rarity of rodent gnaw marks on the archaeological bone that
I have studied and never having observed such rodent
activity in contemporary communities. In order to test this
assumption future taphonomic work in the Andes might do well
to investigate the "pack rat habits" of native rodents and
their possible effect on bone refuse .
The domesticated dog (
r" -
l,.,anlS
.&' - 1 - -)
.. aml larlS is, on the
other hand, a major factor in the survival of bone processed
in Andean communities. Practically every herding family
owns at least one dog and some have more than one. These
dogs are usually medium-sized, spaniel/setter mongrels with
shaggy black fur. They are kept chiefly to guard the flocks
from predators and rustlers, and contribute very minimally
to herding the camel ids and sheep. They usually suffer from
semi-starvation and are quite vicious. They subsist mainly
84
on scraps of meat, potato skins and an occasional bowl of
mush made from mashed chufio, water and sometimes a little
fat.
When the family has picked the bones as clean as possi-
ble they are usually tossed to the dogs who may carry them a
hundred meters or more from the living site in order to gnaw
on them. In this case, the dog is acting as a bone disper-
sal agent and is contributing to a differential loss of bone
materials to the system. Some dogs, however, may aggregate
bones in one spot as was observed in an abandoned herders
complex in Huaycho. Here a small dog house had been built
f r o ~ stones near the downslope corner of the kancha. The
floor of the partially collapsed dog house was littered with
a heavy concentration of bones and the area surrounding it
was also extremely rich in bone refuse. It appears, there-
fore, that Andean dogs can be agents of both dispersal and
concentration in regard to domestic bone refuse.
The destructive influence of domestic dogs on bone is
well recognized (Lyon, 1970), albeit less than precisely
defined (Casteel, 1971)0 Gnaw marks were commonly observed
on bone refuse in all the communities that I visited in the
southern sierra. In Huaycho I collected bone scatter from
the surface surrounding a house that was occupied by one
woman, three children and three dogs. Although I was unable
85
to make any detailed study of the distribution of gnaw marks
on these bones or of the differential representation of bone
elements in the sample, a very large percentage had canine
puncture marks and portions of the cancellous bone gnawed
away. It is unfortunate that the present inaccessability of
this collection and of the ethnographic excavation collec-
tions prevents the quantification of these data. Future
studies of the problems of differential bone survival in the
Andes would do well to include controlled experimentation on
the role of domestic dogs.
At the same time a note of caution should be inter-
jected concerning the indiscriminant use of ethnographic
analogy in the interpretation of archaeological data. Other
human behavioral patterns could have existed in the prehis-
toric past. The present Andean practice of tossing nearly
all bones to the dogs need not be the only hum2n attitude
t o w a ~ ' d dogs and bones. The ana of Tierra del Fuego had a
quite different policy:
In the ashes we discovered charred guanaco bones, which
had first been broken open to remove the marrow. The
Fuegians always threw bones on the fire, to prevent
their hungry dogs from breaking their teeth or choking
them s e 1 v e s (Br i d g e s, 1 94 8 : 1 97)
Bridges does not explain why Fuegian dogs were so delicate.
They probably were not, but the ana thought so and fed them
only meat and internal organs. Although this Ona practice
86
may not have been common in other parts of the world, it is
worth remembering. The bone refuse found at such an Ona
site would have been subjected to quite different agents of
destruction than the bone found in most contemporary Andean
sites.
Burning
As noted in the section on cooking the only camelid
bones that were observed to be regularly roasted were the
ribs. The small amount of bone burning that this roasting
produces is limited to the exposed articular ends and areas
w h e ~ " e the bone is scraped clean of meat. The meat protects
most of the bone from the flames and the signs of burning
that are left on the bone are brown and local (what might be
termed scorch marks). They were not black and allover the
bone.
The lack of bone burning observed during the controlled
consumption experiments contrasts dramatically with the bone
excavated from a contemporary midden in Tuqsa. In one unit
of this excavation over 57% of the 2855 bone fragments
showed some signs of burning. Much of this burning was of
the black or gray (calcined) variety, and covered much or
all of the bone's sur face _ The ashy nature 0 f the so il and
an interview with the occupants of the adjacent house
87
indicated that this midden was the accumulation of years of
kitchen floor sweepings and fireplace refuse. Again a com-
plete analysis of this burning could not be conducted. How-
ever, it is obvious that the mere observation of bone burn-
ing is not a reliable indication of cooking treatment.
These ethnographic observations, suggest that the intensity
of burning may be an indicator of post-consumption disposal.
Bone that is burned black or calcined probably never is pro-
duced in modern Andean communities simply during the cooking
process. It is much more likely that such bone is the
result of bone being thrown directly into the coals after
being stripped of meat and remaining there for some time
exposed to high temperatures.
The direction of the influence of burning on bone is
also somewhat questionable. Intuitively it would seem that
exposing bone to the high temperature stress of a bed of
coals could not help but weaken its internal structure and
thus decrease its longevity in the ground. However, exami-
of a good deal of burned bone excavated in the Andes
has left me with the impression that some bone is actually
preserved in part because of burning. Comparison of bone
from the same excavation unit and level demonstrates that
some of the burned bones, especially those burned jet black,
appear denser and are less eroded than their unburned coun-
terparts. It is possible that exposure to certain
88
temperatures for a particular amount of time in combination
with other unknown variables may harden bone and increase
its chances of survival in the ground. I should emphasize
that this suggestion is based upon a subjective impression,
and that further research, perhaps replicative in nature,
should be conducted in order to define more clearly the des-
tructive and/or preserving effect of fire on bone.
Ceremonial Uses of Camel ids
The methods of ritual slaughter of camel ids have been
described extensively in Chapter 2. Judging from the fre-
quency with which these sacrifices are mentioned in the
early chronicles the number of animals so disposed must have
been quite large, at least under the Inca state religion.
In Cuzco llamas and alpacas were sacrificed daily as part of
the observances of the ceremonial calendar. Although the
various chroniclers differ slightly in their counts, a
minimum of three camel ids appear to have been sacrificed
each day of the year, one in the morning, one at noon and
one at dusk (Molina, 1943:47). The first month of the
sacred round, called Qhapac raymi, was typical in terms of
the sacrifice of camelids. The first day of festivities
witnessed the arrival at the Temple of the Sun of 100 large,
89
carefully chosen camelids
3
with long wool and straight
tails. The high priest of the Sun led them around the idols
and offered them to Wiracocha, the creator god, and then
divided them among thirty of his deputies in order that they
might sacrifice three or four each day of the month (Cobo,
1964: Book XIII, Chap. XXV, 209). According to both Polo de
Ondegardo and Cobo, who used Polo de Ondegardo as one of his
sources, each month began with the offering of 100 camelids,
of differing colors, regardless of the theme or principal
activity of the month. In addition to these regular daily
sacrifices numerous special occasions dictated the sacrifice
of many more camelids in Cuzco, and for other ceremonies,
both public and private, in all parts of the empire.
Although the details of these sacrifices are worthy of
a study themselves, it is the chronicler's description of
the disposal of their remains that is of special interest to
our present discussion of taphonomy. While there is some
disagreement among the chroniclers as to the destiny of the
camelids' carcasses after sacrifice, most emphasize that the
animals were burned. Some state that the meat was consumed
by the public on occasions (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII, Chap.
XXVII, 215) or that the blood was utilized for yawar sankhu,
the blood communion of the Inca religion (Molina, 1943:37;
Cobo, 1964: Book XIII, Chap. XIX, 219). However, the most
interesting description for the zooarchaeologist is that of
90
the disposal of bones. According to Molina sometime after
the full moon of the month of Kamay 4 a juvenile camelid was
burned so that the Winter would always send its waters.
Following this immolation the annual ceremony of burned
bones was conducted:
.,having constructed several step-dams in the stream
that passes through the plaza, they brought out the
ashes and charcoal which had been kept from what was
left over from the bones of the sacrifices of the past
year. They ground these up with two baskets of coca,
many flowers of a variety of colors, a j ~ , salt and
roasted peanuts. Ground up together in this manner
they took out a small amount, and carrieg the rest to
the confluence of said stream and a&other below the
section of the city called Pumachapa (Cobo, 1964: Book
X I I I ~ Chap. XXVI, 213).
After a bit more ceremony the mixture was thrown into the
river along with cloth, feathers gold and silver. Two hun-
dred Indians then followed the floating sacrifice to the
bridge of Ollantaytambo where they offered two more baskets
of coca (Molina, i943:65).
If this practice of grinding up all the remains of
burned sacrificial bone and then disposing of them in a
river was followed consistently in antiquity, these bones
would certainly be lost to the archaeological record. How-
ever, it is unlikely that all the bone from the thousands of
yearly camelid sacrifices would have been treated so
strictly. Nonetheless, a number of other chroniclers indi-
cate that after the sacrificial immolation was complete the
91
bones of the victim were badly burned and these burned bones
were treated in some special manner. Cobo even states that
in Cuzco sacrificial bone remains were kept for years in a
special depository in Pumachupa (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII,
Chap. XXV, 209).
Similar special treatment of the bones from sacrificed
camelids has been observed by ethnographers in the southern
sierra. In Paratfa the sacrifice of a male llama is the
central activity of a ceremony called wilancha. After the
llama is sacrificed part of it usually is consumed in the
traditional manner and part is buried intact. The broken
bones from the consumed portion are then burned and left in
the fire (Jorge Flores 0., personal communication). In the
puna of Moquegua the bones of a sacrificed camelid are not
burned, but after the meat has been eaten they are buried
intact along with leaves of coca in a special pit that has
been dug in a corral (Nachtigall, 1966b:195).
Both the ethnographic and ethnohistorical sources leave
many questions unanswered concerning the disposal of bones
from sacrificed camelids. However, it should be clear that
in no documented case are the bones of such sacrifices
treated casually and discarded as the bones of an animal
that has been slaughtered for meat. It is not inconceiv-
able, therefore, that the discovery of unusual concentra-
92
tions of burned, or perhaps unbroken, camelid bone in Andean
sites may be due in some cases to sacrificial practices.
Housekeeping Behavior
Strangely enough the personal neatness of the family
may be a factor in the survival of bone from Andean communi-
ties. While visiting families in the southern sierra I
noticed a great deal of variation in the amount of detritus
that covered the floors of their kancha. Some kancha are
covered with bone, tin cans, bottles, bits of plastic, etc.,
while others are very clean. Interview with the residents
confirmed that some were much more conscientious house-
keepers than others. Some stated that they cleaned up the
floor of the kitchen and kancha only when it was necessary,
some claimed to clean about once a week and one insisted
that he buried the floor sweepings and fireplace contents
almost every day. Variation also existed in whether the
residents made consistent use of a designated dumping area
or randomly tossed garbage over the kancha walls. Such
differences in domestic behavior obviously contribute to the
dispersal and concentration of bone refuse.
The ethnographic excavations conducted in Tuqsa and
Huaycho provide two widely contrasting examples of bone
refuse accumulation. The residents of the Tuqsa household
93
made consistent use of a spring-side midden for fireplace
contents but were rather casual in regards to refuse in the
kitchen and kancha. Soundings made around the periphery of
the kancha turned up only sparse bone refuse, while excava-
tion in the midden uncovered a significant concentration of
bone (Fig. 3-1). As mentioned earlier, however, this midden
contained a high percentage of burned bone which had been
subjected to a different set of stresses from the bone found
around the periphery of the kancha. Any attempt to compare
the differential representation of bone elements from this
midden with bones from any other part of the site or with a
different site would have to recognize the cultural filters
through which they had passed.
The excavations at Huaycho were conducted in a house-
hold complex which had been abandoned for some five years.
In this case we know little about the housekeeping habits of
the residents but something can be inferred from the bone
accumulation. The complex is built on an approximately 10
0
slope and the floor of the kancha was originally covered
with cobblestones. These factors, along with the aforemen-
tioned dog house, seem to have been influences in the accu-
mulation of bone on the site. No true midden was discovered
" ". ". i
around the periphery of the complex, concentra-
.
tions of bone were found at the low point of the kancha and
just over the wall outside (Fig. 3-2). Originally this
stream
midden
"" III { r,
j*
-::
;,. ",If ", lilt
corral
3-1 Sketch of Tuqsa house complex.
"".-
tv,1I
za._kt_IChl-.J
bedroom
94
95
corral
bedroom
-
-
-
-

-
kancha
- :
bedroom
Figure 3-2 Sketch of Huaycho house complex.
96
corner of the kancha possessed a drain which was uncovered
during excavation, but had been completely clogged and
covered by some 60 cm. of refuse and mud. Apparently heavy
rains had washed refuse from all parts of the upslope kancr-a
to this corner, down through the drain and on to the slope
below. Throwing bones over the wall at this corner may also
have contributed to the downslope deposition. Then, at some
time, the drain became clogged and refuse also accumulated
on the inside of the wall.
In contrast to the bone from the Tuqsa midden the Huay-
cho bone was largely unburned. Instead a high percentage of
it suffered from having been waterlogged in the dense clay
for several years. Much of this bone was light and
extremely fragile, presumably having undergone some degree
of decalcification, and probably would not have survived in
any recognizable form for many more years. Had this been a
site of archaeological time depth the smaller and more fra-
gile fragments would certainly have disappeared.
Although the present inaccessability of these data do
not permit an analytical comparison of the differential
representation of bone elements from these two ethnographic
samples, it should be clear that differences in household
behavior can subject bone to different kinds of stresses.
Consideration of these stresses should be included in any
91
bone analysis.
Vertical Bioenergetics
Perhaps the most intriguing and complex factor affect-
ing the representation of bone elements in Andean refuse has
to do with the very nature of the Andean economic system and
the flow of energy between ecozones. The interdependence of
vertical ecozones in the prehistoric past has been
emphasized by (1912) and others. It is recognized
that the high altitude puna ecozone is only habitable
because of the unique ability of the domesticated camel ids
to prosper above 4,000 meters and the ability of camelid
herders to trade animal products for agricultural goods from
lower altitudes. In analyzing the human bioenergetics of
communities in the Nunoa area Brooke Thomas has summarized
this phenomenon most concisely:
As suggested from the energetic efficiency of pastoral-
ism, food energy which can be extracted only from the
high puna flow system is probably not sufficient to
meet consumption requirements of a substantial segment
of the Nunoa population. When animal resources (wool,
hides, meat, etc.) produced in this ecosystem, however,
are exchanged for high calories foods grown at
elevations, adequate energy levels become available.
have indicated that if all animal resources
produced by a typical family were exchanged for wheat
flour, energy production derived from pastoralism could
be increased as much as five times. This would result
in an overall energetic efficiency of 11.9, which is
almost identical to agriculture during a normal year.
A critical interdependcy therefore exists between
98
ecozones, which if disrupted could seriously affect the
ability of the Nunoa population to support itself (Tho-
mas, 1973:164).
Thus viewed within the context of bioenergetics, the
vertical trading patterns alluded to during the discussion
of the wich'uffa become an absolute necessity of survival for
residents of the puna. In addition, this necessity has been
felt for a good many centuries. Writing in the middle of
the 17th century, Cobo described subsistence in the
puna:
God created llamas in this cold land for the good of
its inhabitants, for without these animals life would
be very difficult because the land is very sterile ...
(Cobo, 1964: Book IX, Chap. LVII, 365).
Somewhat later Cobo adds that the necessity was a mutual
one, felt at both vertical levels:
With the meat and textiles which [the camelid herders]
made bought and bartered in the valleys and warm
country for the things they lacked, such as aji, fish,
corn, coca, fruits and other things that they needed.
Because in the warm country the residents lacked meat,
because camelids are not born there. Nor did they have
other domesticated animals to compensate for this lack
until the Spanish brought their domesticated animals
which now abound everywhere (Cobo, 1964: Boox IX, Chap.
LVII, 366).
Vertical exchange certainly must have been of much
greater importance before the introduction of European
domesticates, but even in the present day such trade is very
evident in the southern sierra. For the anthropologist and
tourist alike the sight of a loaded llama train down
99
from the p ~ n a or returning is a colorful and still not
totally infrequent occurrence along the Cuzco-Puno road and
others parts of the southern sierra. When asked what they
are carrying llama drivers generally mention a variety of
puna products and usually include chargui
7
(jerky) in the
list. Modern camelid charqui is produced by salting joints
of meat and alternately exposing them to the high Andean sun
and to its freezing nights. Normally this is done during
June or July, the coldest months of the year. As in all
other culturally governed behaviors observed in the southern
sierra some variation exists in the style of charqui produc-
tion, but most herders produce it with the bones still in
the meat. All parts of the carcass are utilized with the
exception of the lower legs and the head which are never
used. The term "lower leg" in this case includes cannons,
phalanges and perhaps some carpals o ~ tarsals, depending on
the butchery technique (see Fig. 2-2 for review of varia-
tions in carpal/tarsal butchery treatment). The lower legs
are not included because they lack sufficient meat to make
them desirable, while the head will not keep for a prolonged
period of time and is set aside for immediate home con sump-
tion.
It is difficult to know, of course, to what degree
prehistoric charqui manufactures conformed to the modern
method of dressing the carcass and distributing the
100
different joints of meat. An entirely different system of
distribution of joints of meat may have existed in anti-
quity, as well as the concurrent policy of driving some live
animals to lower altitudes and trading them on the hoof.
There is some ethnohistorical evidence to indicate that not
only were camelids "sold" on the hoof at the agricultural
level, but that some coastal valley peoples even possessed
permanent herds of llamas CGarci Diez, 1964). Despite these
complications, h o w e v e r ~ there exists the possibility that we
may be able to detect ver-tical trading of charqui in the
differential representation of bone elements from both the
pastoral level and from the agricultural level. This possi-
bility will be explored further in Chapter 5.
Summary
As mentioned in Chapter 1 the chief goal of my ethno-
graphic research in the southern highlands was to investi-
gate the processes of camelid bone treatment among contem-
porary herders. A hypothetico-deductive model of the pri-
mary taphonomic processes believed to contribute to the for-
mation of a general faunal sample was presented in Figure
1-16. As a result of the ethnoarchaeological research
described in the previous two chapters the model now can be
viewed as more complete and documenting a multitude of pre-
101
viously unrecognized taphonomic factors operating specifi-
cally upon the formation of Andean sites. Figure 3-3 sum-
marizes these results and illustrates the direction of
influence of each taphonomic filter. Outward directed
arrows indicate destruction and a loss of bone material from
the taphonomic system. Inward directed arrows indicate
alteration and/or transport and imply redistribution of bone
material within the taphonomic system.
It would be completely unrealistic to suggest that this
model includes all agents of destruction and redistribution
operating on Andean faunal assemblages. I am thoroughly
convinced that one year's fieldwork has only scratched the
surface of this problem. However, Figure 3-3 does serve to
document t!1e known taphonomic factors and to underscore the
fact that faunal samples are not the result of any single
cause but rather are the results of a multitude of factors.
IIEA111 ...
."nllicial
\' 111'11
opec I., tHllle
""'r'
STOH"':f./
,.HANSIOIlI
UfIIIAI:t:
t

I IIlI1TIIFHY
}HIC
IUlltH
\
lun
..L-
/1.Hf:-COIlKIIU: ....
FIlAC'lIIIIf.

RECOVERY
H(:IIIIICIIIF.
1

com: 11/1:
I:EOI.lllacl
4 fNVlllorltlENTAI
...ACTORS
SAHl'I,IN!;
Figure 3-3 Model of taphonomic filters operating on came lid bone between its origin
in the living animal until its archaeological analysis in the laboratory
(outward directed arrows indicate a loss of bone to the system; inward
directed arrows indicate redistribution of bone within the system).
......
o
I\.)
Chapter 4
ARCHAEOLOG!CAL CASE STUDIES FROM THE VALLEY OF CUZCO
Ultimately the ethnographic data presented in the pre-
vious chapters are only relevant for the archaeologist when
compared with faunal materials excavated from an archaeolog-
ical site. In an attempt to test the applicability of the
various hypotheses derived from the ethnographic research,I
undertook the analysis of three archaeological bone samples
from the Cuzco Valley in the southern highlands. All three
sites share the same basic environmental zone 1rlhile varying
slightly in terms of micro-environmental niches. They differ
greatly, however, in terms of associated cultural refuse and
times of occupation. The sites are from earliest to latest
as follows:
Site Descriptions
A) Marcavalle, PCz 6-45 This is an Early Horizon occu-
pation site located at 13
0
31' 45" Sand 71 0 57' Won the
southeastern margin of the present day city of Cuzco at an
elevation 0 f approx im atel y 3,300 meter s above sea level.
The site consists of a shallow midden approximately 300
meters long and 300 meters wide situated on a wide terrace
104
above the R ~ o Cachimayo which flows along the northeastern
edge of the city of Cuzco and eventually into the Urubamba
drainage system (Fig. 4-1). It was occupied during Peru's
Early Horizon by the earliest pottery making people of the
Valley of Cuzco, and the site has been radiocarbon dated at
between 146 + 51 B.C. and 966 + 55 B.C. based on a half-life
of 5568 years (Karen L. Mohr-Chavez, personal communica-
tion)
The faunal sample whose analysis is included here was
obtained in an excavation conducted in October, 1963 by the
University of Cuzco under the direction of Luis Barreda
Murillo and Patricia J. Lyon, and with the assistance of
five fifth-year anthropology students. Three contiguous
units comprising a total volume 2.5 meters long by 2.0
meters wide by about 1.1 meters deep were excavated near
the approximate center of the site within the present walls
of the Instituto de Menores. Animal bone was recovered by
two techniques. The larger bones were collected during the
trowelling process, while finer fragments were collected in
the screens. Two screens were used simultaneously during
the excavation, one with half inch mesh and the other with
quarter inch mesh. Small bones obviously were lost through
the half inch mesh which would have been recovered with the
quar-ter inch mesh.
t.T_ _ .... -- ... '- -
l1V WI: V 1::1 , \" 1l I:: simultaneous use of both
screens during all phases of the excavation should have
Figure 4-1
"
t
_ _1
5 4 )
2 o
5 KUotnetcro
Cuzco Valley sites and surrounding topography (atter ~ u z c o quadrant, Instituto Geogr'fico Militar,
Lima, 1973).

106
prevented the non-random skewing of the sampling from any
horizontal sector or stratigraphic level. The net result of
this system of recovery should be a consistent under-
representation of small bones in all areas of the site.
1
B) Qhataq'asallacta-, PCz This is an Inca period
site located at 13
0
32' Sand 71
0
59' W at approximately
3600 meters elevation on the north slope of a hill above the
modern church of on the southwestern edge of Cuzco
(Fig. 4-1). The site overlooks the Rfo Huancaro and con-
sists of long rows of rectangular structures, measuring
approximately 4X8 meters, and extending down the slope of
the hill toward the city. The total area of the site is
approximately one square kilometer.
Based on the recovered pottery, the site was occupied
during the Late Horizon and into the early Colonial Period.
It is believed to have been constructed by the Inca state
and used primarily for habitation (Dean E. Arnold, personal
communication) .
The faunal sample whose analysis is included here was
obtained by clearing and excavation of the site by the
Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Cuzco between October, 1972
and April, 1973, under the direction of Gonzales Cor-
rales, staff archaeologist of the Instituto Nacional de Cul-
tura, and Dean E. Arnold, visiting Fulbright professor at
107
the University of Cuzco. Excavation and clearing involved
the tracing of the numerous ruined walls and the excavation
of three rectangular structures near the north end of the
site. Animal bone was recovered primarily in passageways
outside the rectangular structures. No information is
available concerning the use of screens during the excava-
tion process.
C) Minaspata, PCz 12-i This site is located in a
slightly different biogeographic zone than the other two
Cuzco Valley sites. It is situated in the Lucre Basin at
the extreme southern end of the long valley of Cuzco, at a
somewhat lower altitude than the city itself and overlooks
the southeast shore of resource-rich Lake Lucre (Fig.4-1).
Minaspata is a multi-component midden including some col-
lapsed architectural features and appears to have been occu-
pied intermittently from sometime in the Early Horizon
through Inca times (Dwyer, 1971:70-12). However, the pot-
tery from Minaspata has not been subjected to any rigorous
analysis. Therefore, its time of occupation cannot be dated
with any confidence.
The faunal analysis included here refers to a small
sample excavated in May and June, 1969 by Alfredo Valencia
Zegarra of the ex-patronato de Arqueologfa, Cuzco.
108
Methods of Analysis
The three Cuzco faunal samples mentioned above were
borrowed from the University of Cuzco and the Instituto
~ a c i o n a l de Cultura, Cuzco, respectively, in January, 1975.
They were then transported to the osteology laboratory, at
La Raya, where they were cleaned and separated into those
bones that were believed to be identifiable to at least the
family level
2
and those fragments too small, too damaged or
not sufficiently diagnostic to be identifiable to that
level. The identifiable bones were then marked as to their
site number, horizontal provenience and vertical proveni-
ence. The non-identifiable bones were set aside in labeled
bags for later analysis. The numbers of bones from each of
these categories are summarized below:
Site
Marcavalle
Qhataq'asallacta
Minaspata
ID bones
633
1590
99
Non-ID bones
3688
8299
*
Total
4321
9889
*3
All numbered bones were identified using the compara-
tive collection of native Andean fauna that was being
prepared in the La Raya laboratory, and the following data
determined for each bone: 1) bone element, 2) side, 3)
109
proximal-distal and/or anterior/posterior portion, 4) state
of fusion of long bones or eruption and wear of teeth, 5)
taxon, 6) fracture pattern, 7) number, orientation and posi-
tion of any cut marks present on the bone, 8) the maximum
dimension in millimeters (including any broken portion), 9)a
description of any human modification evident on the bone,
10) a description of any burning which the bone may have
suffered, 11) any diagnostic biometric measurements. These
data were recorded individually on cards as in the example
illustrated in Fig. 4-2.
After returning to the University of California, Berke-
ley, a computer code system was devised to describe all the
aforementioned variables and then all data originally
recorded on cards were transferred to numeric form on coding
sheets as in the sample illustrated in Fig.4-3, and eventu-
ally to punched cards. The separate values which each of
these variables can take are described in the complete code
book which is included as Appendix 2.
The statistical manipulation of the data was accom-
plished by means of various packaged subprograms available
in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
using the CDC 6400 computer at the University of California,
Berkeley, and by means of a number of programs developed for
the Data General Nova and Eclipse Mini-Computers at the
Nq C-z. 10 - 46
:r 6 - J - I {j Familia: Catmi2.Jo
Elemento Osee:
T; bio....
O'Stc&

Fusion:
f05JONodo
Comentario:
Especie
y/o
Tamaiio:
Estimacion
de Edad:
Fractura y I 0 Huellas
de Carnicei'ia:
Peso:
Figure 4-2 Sample bone data card used in analysis.
110
-

Z
'"
:::>
...
::-c:- .. ) ,,> Q t <i
rt- -::- :- -=-
- -.. -- - - -... - -
rt- '''I - c
\l"'" IS'" IS" \0;
- -. ................ -
\f) ':\ .s _t"'"

C ;.,p.::P-
C" ('\.(':>
c- --J!:>
---
-
C ,,") ,,) ....
-


-.-C" ___ -
Z
= C
Z
z
- C>
-.
X
- <
...
....
21
C) c I .
Ir' <0 t><:> c>'" I
<::l - 0 ....... G .
..
........ -


lO- .... "
-nr.-'-l. r<'>
--
-
Cb
,
i
.
!
I
:
;
1
1
l
i
,
,
I
\ i t
\
I
I
1
'""
1
I I
=- .
-
- ...
,,") ..
0.00.00
111
112
Department of Anthropology's Quantitative Methods Labora-
tory.
Species Identification
The fauna available to the prehistoric inhabitants of
the Cuzco Valley has been described by Hershkovitz (1969:60)
as the pastoral fauna of the Andean altiplano. This zoogeo-
graphic zone is characterized by relatively few mammalian
niches whose occupants operate within efficient predator-
prey relationships. The mammals represented at the three
Cuzco Valley sites are listed below:
Rodentia
Caviidae
Cavia porcellus ---------------------cuy, guinea pig
Carnivora
Canidae
Canis familiaris --------------------domestic dog
Dusicyon culpaeus ------------------ Andean fox
Mustelidae
Conepatus rex ---------------------- skunk
Artiodactyla
Camelidae
Lama guanicoe ---------------------- guanaco
Lama glama ------------------------- llama
Lama pacos ------------------------- alpaca
Vicugna vicugna -------------------- vicuna
Cervidae
113
Hippocamelus antisensis ------------ taruka, huemul
Odocoileus virginianus ------------- white-tailed deer
Despite the low diversity of this fauna it was not
always possible during analysis to assign the bone fragments
to the species level with a great degree of confidence.
Canids are represented at all three site, but in the cases
of Marcavalle and Minaspata by only isolated teeth. The
Ohataq
1
asallacta canids are represented by both an isolated
tooth and fragmentary maxillae and mandibles, but the lack
of a sufficieut sample of comparative dog and fox skeletal
material prevented identification to the species level.
The taruka and white-tailed deer are difficult to dis-
tinguish on the basis of post-cranial material. Only in the
case of an o. virginianus antler fragment from Marcavalle
was it possible to identify a deer specimen to the species
level. The remaining specimens have been identified only as
cervids. It is presumed, however, that both species were
utilized by the Cuzco Valley inhabitants, since both are
present in the region today.
114
The four species of Andean camel ids similarly are
extremeley difficult to distinguish on the basis of fragmen-
tary skeletal remains. Few morphological features have been
found wi th which even complete skel etons of the four species
may be distinguished. However, size differences among the
four species can be used with relative success in order to
obtain at least a rough idea of which of the camelids are
present in an archaeological site, and in what proportion.
Discussion of this technique will be deferred until later in
this chapter.
Relative Importance Of Different Species
The first point to emerge from the analysis of the
identifiable bones is the predominance of camelids over all
other taxa at the three sites. it
constituted the primary source
is clear that camelids
of animal protein of all
three archaeological communities, with other mammals playing
only very secondary roles in the economy. However, the per-
centages of the secondary species differ somewhat from site
to site and deserve thorough discussion.
A number of methods have been devised by faunal
analysts in an attempt to assess the relative abundance of
different animal taxa excavated from archaeological sites.
115
These methods have been employed on single component sites,
between stratigraphic levels of multicomponent sites, and
between sites or units of the same time period. Whether used
synchronically or diachronically, all the methods with which
I am familiar possess the common goal of quantifying as
accurately as possible the relative economic importance of
each species to the living human community. The three
methods which are most commonly seen in the faunal litera-
ture achieve this goal with differing degrees of success.
In order to test the relative value of each of these methods
to faunal analysis in the Andes, I have calculated the rela-
tive importance of different taxa using each of the three
methods separately.
Number of Indentified Specimens
The first of these taxon abundance methods to be used
historically in faunal analysis was the fragments or speci-
men method. This method is quite simple in procedure and
consists of merely counting the number of bone fragments
assignable to each taxon and assuming that the relative pro-
portion of each of these taxa in the archaeological sample
correlates in some linear fashion with their relative impor-
tance in the diet. However, this procedure has been chal-
lenged by a number of authors (Chaplin,1971:64-67;
116
Daly,1969:149; Payne,1972:68). While there is no need here
to repeat the exhaustive criticism of these authors, it is
necessary to emphasize that the specimen method views both
animal anatomy and the entire taphonomic pathway from the
biosphere to the lab table in the most simplistic of terms.
The specimen method assumes that all animals in the sample
have the same number of identifiable bones -- which they
often do not (eg. a carnivore may have as many as 60
phalanges while an equid has 12). Likewise the fragments
method assumes that the butchery of a large animal will pro-
duce the same number of fragments as the butchery of a small
animal. This is rarely, if ever, the case. The breaking up
of marrow-rich bones of large animals and leaving intact the
bones of small animals is a pattern frequently observed in
zooarchaeological samples. Finally the fragments method
assumes that all parts of the carcass of every species
arrived at the excavated area, and that they suffered
equally under the destructive factors of cooking, burial and

In light of all these negative comments it would seem
that we could discard the specimen method and pass on to
more profitable avenues of research. However, despite its
drawbacks the specimen method may be of value in certain
cases which will be discussed below. Thus, this method was
the first utilized to calculate the relative importance of
117
the different taxa found at the three Cuzco Valley sites.
The complete results of this method are presented in Table 2
and summarized graphically in Fig.4-4.
Minimum Numbers of Individuals
In 1953, Theodore White, recognizing some of the prob-
lems inherent in the specimen method, suggested that a more
accurate determination of the relative abundance of dif-
ferent taxa could be made by calculating the minimum number
of individuals necessary to have produced the faunal sample
under investigation. The procedure which White utilized to
this end was to select for each taxon the most abundant
unique bone element (eg. left distal tibia, right dentary,
right astragalus) and let its frequency in the
as the minimum number of individuals (MNI). Thus, this logic
would argue that, if 27 left bison astragali are the
greatest number of unique bones at a Site, then the remains
of at least 27 individual bison must have been deposited
there.
It is important to note that White's method makes no
claim at estimating the "probable" number of individuals,
but rather contents itself with the most conservative esti-
mate, the bare minimum. A number of I ater faunal analysts
(Chaplin,1971j Flannery,1967j Krantz,1968) have felt,
118
Marcavalle Qhataq'asa Minaspata
Human 0 15 0
(0.9%)
Cuy 0 7 0
(0.4% )
Canid 2 4 1
(0.3%) (0.2%) (0.9%)
Conepatus rex 0 1 0
(0.06%)
Camelid 583 1541 78
(82.5%) (96.0%) (71 .6% )
Cervid 46 5 19
(6.5%) (0.3%) (17.4%)
Bos taurus 0 1 0
(0.06%)
Bird 2 0 1
(0.3%) (0.9%)
Reptile 0 1 0
(0.06%)
Amphibian 0 1 0
I
(0.06%)
Lg. mammal indet. 42 13
*3
(5.9% ) (0.8% )
I
Sm. mammal indet. 0 2
*
(0.1%)
Artiod ac tyl indet 3i 14
*
(4.4%) (0.9%)
Total 705 1605
. 99
Table 2
Numbers of identified specimens from Cuzco Valley sites.
Camelids
92.1%
(583)
MARCAVALLE
Camelids
78.8%
(78)
MINASPATA
Others
Others
0.6%
(4)
Camelids
98.7%
(1541)
1. 3% L========--
(20)
Others
~ - . . . . . . , . . 2-;0%
(2)
QHATAQ ' ASALLACTA
119
Figure 4-4 Relative frequencies of taxa from Cuzco Valley sites based
on identified specimens (categories less specific than the
family level have been excluded).
120
however, that White's minimum numbers go beyond scientific
conservatism to the point of inaccur9cy. Thus, they have
taken White's method as only the first step in their calcu-
lations and revised their MNls upward by carefully checking
to see if all the lefts matched all the rights. In so doing
Chaplin makes use of an elaborate procedure involving both
proximal and distal portions of long bones, Flannery util-
izes only the more abundant of the portions, and Krantz uses
only paired mandible halves to estimate the original animal
population at the site. Unfortunately, these and other
variations in the calculation of MNIs, although admirable in
their intents, have added yet another problem to the primary
goal of estimating the relative economic importance of the
excavated species. This problem is one of lack of compara-
bility between the work of different authors. Donald Gray-
son has demonstrated the disparate and misleading results
that may be obtained from different methods of calculating
MNIs and has c aIled for stand ard ization of methodology among
faunal analysts (Grayson,1973). While agreeing in principle
with such standardization, I suspect that it may be prema-
ture to decide on one method until it has been proven to
produce more accurate results than any other. In the
interim, however, I feel that it is clearly necessary for
faunal analysts to state explicitly how their MNIs are
derived.
121
Methods of MNI Calculations for the Cuzco Valley Sites
The MNI procedure which I utilized with the Cuzco Val-
ley bones was a combination of both Chaplin's and Flannery's
methods. For every taxon each unique bone element category
(eg. proximal metatarsal) was separated into rights and
lefts. Following Chaplin "any animal which could not be
identified as not belonging to any of the animals from the
opposite site was assumed to be from an animal represented
on the opposite side." In other words the burden of proof is
on demonstrating that a bone from the less abundant side
could not possibly match any bone from the more abundant
side and, therefore, should be added to the MNI total. The
criteria which I used to judge non-matches between right and
left were age and size.
In order to clarify this procedure, it will be helpful
to describe an example from level 2 of the site of Marca-
valle in which 21 camelid calcanea are represented by 9
rights and 12 lefts. According to White's method these
specimens would indicate a MNI of 12. However, non-matches
can be demonstrated in the following manner: First, the
rights and lefts may be differentiated by dividing them
according to their age. Thus:
Fused
Unfused
Neonatal
Left
7
1
4
Right
7
2
o
122
At this stage it can be seen that the MNI has increased from
12 to 13 on the basis of 7 fused lefts (or rights), 2
unfused rights, and 4 neonatal lefts, none of which can be
matches.
Next each fused left is compared biometrically with
each fused right in an attempt to demonstrate non-matches
(later this same type of comparison may be repeated for the
unfused elements). Ideally this comparison is done by
measuring the same dimension with calipers on each bone (eg.
maximum distal width). However, it is frequently impossible
to take the same measurement because the critical landmarks
have been damaged or fractured away. Damaged bones of this
kind must be assumed to be matches.
The complete comparison of Marcavalle right and left
calcanea appears in Table 3. The specific goal of the
biometric comparison of fused elements is to determine if
the MNI of 12 lefts can be increased by the addition of any
proved non-matches among the fused rights. The results are
that 2 fused rights are assumed to match 2 fused lefts
because of fragmentation, and all circled fused rights are
shown to be non-matches with all the lefts on the basis of
measurements. In addition both of the unfused rights cannot
LEFT RIGHT
Neonatal
#1
#2
#'3
#4
Un fused
#54
~
iF1
ra #2
Fused
#6 74.9 iF3
#7 80.7 #4
#8 91 .5 #5
#9
03 7
.,I .! #6
#10 96. 1 #7
#11 Frag . ~ Frag. #8
#12 Frag . ~ Fr ag #9
Table 3
Marcavalle, Unit 2, camelid calcanea comparisons
for determination of MNIs. Arrows indioate matches.
Circled elements indicate non-matches.
123
match one unfused left, so one of the rights is circled as a
non-match. The minimum number of individuals is therefore
increased by 6 to a total of 18.
The Problem of Bilateral Variation
The validity of these biometric comparisons, of course,
hinges upon a clear idea of the size variation th2t might be
expected between a right and left element of the same
animal. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such bilateral
124
variation has never been documented in a published form.
However, in illustrating a set of biometric comparisons for
MNI calculations, Chaplin seems to assume a very narrow
range of variation between right and left. Chaplin's exam-
pIe is summarized here in Table 4.
#1
#2
fl3
414
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
LEFT RIGHT
27.0+----
26.0 ----.27.0
23.54
28.0 ?

24.6
27.6
23.4
24.6
Table 4
Example of biometric comparisons of fused distal
sheep tibiae (after Chaplin, 1971:74). Arrows indi-
cate matches. Circled elements indicate non-matches.
In this example he accepts as matches two sets of identical
measurements, as probable matches two bones for which there
is a 0.3 mm. difference in maximum distal width, and rejects
a possible pair with a 0.2 mm. difference (#2 left, #6
right) and another with a 0.4 mm. difference (#2 left, #4
right) Thus, Chaplin would add all three circled right
elements to the MNI derived from the left elements. The
logic of these judgements impresses me as inconsistent.
In regard to the Cuzco Valley bones I chose to be very
conservative in the numbers of bcnes that could be added to
125
the MNI on the basis of non-comparable measurements. I
assumed a 1.0 mm. limit of variation between right and left
on measurements of the magnitude mentioned in the previous
two examples. This limit is over twice that which Chaplin
appears to employ, but as shown in Table 3 w a ~ not too wide
to demonstrate non-matches (in other cases camelid bones
were judged to be matches using this limit of variation).
Admittedly this limit is completely arbitrary, without docu-
mentation, and may exaggerate the degree of assymetry found
among vertebrates, but in the absence of specific zoological
guidelines it seems wise to assume wider limits of bilateral
variation and to place a heavier burden of proof on non-
matches.
These examples point to the necessity of a more criti-
cal examination of the problem of bilateral variation within
a skeletal population of vertebrates. The goal of such a
study should be to quantify the amount of variation within
which right-left matches can occur and beyond which a non-
match is indicated. Until such a study is performed we can
have no more than an intuitive sense about the correctness
of MNls based on biometric comparisons.
MNls, Excavation Units and Refuse Disposal Spheres
The final theoretical problem which must be mentioned
126
in regard to the minimum numbers of individuals from the
Cuzco Valley sites concerns the analytical units within
these sites which were chosen for the calculation of MNls.
These analytical units are determined by the vertical stra-
tigraphy of the site and the horizontal displacemment of
excavation units. A fundamental assumption of the match
method of MNI calculation is that the remains of an indivi-
dual animal could have been deposited anywhere within the
anlytical unit. This requires that the analytical units
represent fairly discreet time periods and/or areas of depo-
sition, and that units which are believed to be heterochro-
nous or mix different refuse disposal spheres should not be
chosen. On the other hand, it is logical to lump contem-
poraneous stratigraphic levels which occur within different
but nearby pits.
The analytical units chosen for the calculation of
minimum numbers of individuals from the site of Marcavalle
coincide with a major stratigraphic break noted during exca-
vation. site was excavated in two arbitrary levels, 0-
30 cm. and 30-60 cm., and two partially natural levels, 60-
100 cm. and 100-110 cm. (see Fig. 4-5). Unfortunately the
arbitrary excavation of the portion above 60 cm. mixed
several natural strata and it has been necessary here to
lump them together (0-60 cm.). The natural levels below 60
cm. have also been lumped into one analytical unit (60-110
a cm.
60 cm.
100 cm ..
127
SECTOR SECTOR PILOT
B.
Figure 4-5
A SECTOR











0




























!

~ N A L Y T I C AL U N I T

A N A L Y TIC A L U NIT












1
2
,Analytic21 units utilized to calculate minimum numbers
of individuals from the site of Marcavalle.
128
cm.) because of the paucity of material from the 100-110 em.
level and evidence for continuous occupation between the two
level s. In contr ast the stratig raphic and ceram ic ev id ence
suggests that occupation may not have been continuous
between the upper (0-60 cm.) and the lower (60-110 cm.) com-
ponents, and that a break between analytical units is justi-
fied here. Lastly, there was no material culture difference
noted between the same levels of the 3 horizontal sectors
(Patricia J. Lyon, personal communication). Therefore , it
was decided to use the 2 analytical units illustrated in
Fig. 4-5 and to calculate minimum numbers of individuals for
each unit separately and then to sum them. The complete
results of these calculations are shown in Table 5.
Unit 1 is slightly larger in volume (1.5 m
3
) than Unit
2 (1 .25
3
m ), but a much heavier concentration of bone was
found in the lower unit (475 identifiable bones) than in the
upper one (158 identifiable bones). This differential bone
concentration is also reflected in the MNIs and in the
ceramics.
The determination of analytical units for the site of
Qhataq'asallacta involved a different set of problems than
those mentioned for Marcavalle. As noted in the site
descriptions the material cuI ture associated with
Qhataq'asallacta is almost exclusively Inca, with a few
129
ANALYTICAL UNIT 1 ANALYTICAL UNIT 2
Camelid I Cervid Camelid
I
Cervid
Mandible 1 0 4 0
Max ilIa 0 0
3
0
Scapula
3
0 4 1
Pr. Humerus 1 0
3 3
Ds. Humerus 2 0 7 2
Pr. Rad ius-Ulna 1 0 8 2
Ds. Radius-Ulna 1 0 10 0
Metacarpal 2 1 8 0
.
Astragalus
5 1 13 3
Calcaneum
3
0 15 1
-
Metatarsal 0 0 23 0
Ds. Tibia 2 0 9 2
Pr. Tibia
3
0 4 1
Ds. Femur 1 0
3 1
Pr. Femur
3
0 6 2
Innominate 4 0 7 0
Table 5
Minimum numbers of individuals represented by various elements
from the 2 analytical units (levels) of Marcavalle.
Colonial remains. These associations effectively bracket
the occupation from sometime after the rise of the Inca
state under Pachakuti around 1438 until shortly after the
Spanish conquest of Cuzco in 1533. Tnis rather discreet
time period, plus the fact that no clear stratigraphic
breaks were noted during excavation, argues for the use of
one analytical unit for the determination of MNIs. Such
would be the case, if we could safely assume that meat was
shared over the entire extent of the excavated area and/or
130
that the excavated area falls within one refuse disposal
sphere. However, the presence of architecture at the site
suggests an alternative situation. Meat consumption and bone
disposal may have centered around individual structures,
with little or no transport away from this center.
Since nearly all excavations at Qhataq'asallacta had
been conducted within or along the exterior wall of archi-
tectural structures (see Fig. 4-6), it was decided to test
for this kind of bone movement before deciding on the pre-
ferred analytical unites) for MNI calculations. This was
done by attempting to match biometrically the three most
abundant elements (astragalus, calcaneum, proximal metacar-
pal) from diverse areas of the site. Such comparisons, of
course, suffered from the same lack of knowledge concerning
bilateral variation as was discussed previously. In addi-
tion other variables such as domestic dogs, downslope move-
ment, etc. may have scattered bones that were originally
deposited around an individual structure. These difficul-
ties, notwithstanding, no perfect matches were detected in
non-adjacent structures, and very few 1.0 mm. limit of vari-
ation matches were found in non-adjacent structures. This
negative evidence certainly does not prove that bone dispo-
sal was centered around individual structures and that no
post-consumption bone movement occurred between structures.
However, when coupled with the activity area evidence to be
v...........
....
Anta
:'
.............
t Cuzco

I
N
131
Excavated area
Figure 4-6 Sketch map of (after information provided
by Dean E. Arnold).
I
132
discussed in the next chapter it argues for the use of
architecture related excavation units as analytical units in
the MNI calculations. The complete results of these calcu-
lations for the camelids are presented in Table 6.
I II III IV 1A 2A 3A 02 03 T ?
Mandible
-
01 01
-
01
- - -
03
- -
Maxilla 01 01
- - -
01
- -
- - -
Scapula 02 05 02 06 02 04
-
05 04 02 07
Pr. Humerus
-
('11
01 01 02
- - 03 01
-
01
-.J I
Ds. Humerus 02 03 03 02 04 01
-
10 04 01 07
Pr. Radius-Ulna 02 03 06 04 02 01
-
07 04 01 07
Ds. Radius-Ulna 02
03 04 05 01 02 01 06 05 01 07
Scaphoid
-
01
- -
01 01
-
01
- -
02
Lunar
- - - - - - -
01
- -
02
Cuneiform
-
01 01
-
01
- - 03 02
-
02
Magnum
- -
01
- - - - 01 01
-
01
Unciform
-
01 01
- -
- -
02 02
- 03
Pisiform
-
01
- - -
- -
01
- -
-
Metacarpal
05 02 08 03 02 02
-
07 05
-
10
Metatarsal 02 02 05 02 03 01
-
12 06 02 04
Astragalus
n":1
08 12 05 04 02
- 06 03 - 08
~ oJ
I
I
Calcaneum 02 02 03 03 02 01
-
08 04 01 06
Nav icular
-
01 02
- - - -
03 03
-
02
Cuboid
-
02 04 02 01
- -
05 05
-
05
En tocunei form
-
01 01 01
- - -
02
- - 03
Fibula I 01 02 02
-
02
- - -
01
-
02
Ds. Tibia
03 05 03 06 05 01
-
06 03 02 05
Pr. Tibia 01 02 02 01 02 01
-
07 03
-
02
Ds. Femur 01 03 02 01 01 02 01 07 04
-
1 1
Pr. Femur 01 02 02 02 01 02 01 07 04 01 1 1
Innominate
01 03 02
-
01 03
-
10 05
- -
i
Table 6
Minimum numbers of camelids as represented by various
elements from separate analytical units at Qhataq'asallacta.
I
133
Due to the small sample size from Minaspata it was
decided to lump all excavation levels into one analytical
unit. The Minaspata minimum numbers of individuals are
presented in Table 7.
Mandible
Maxilla
Scapula
Pr. Humerus
Ds. Humerus
Pr. Rad ius-Ulna
Ds. Rad ius-Ulna
Metacarpal
Astragalus
Calcaneum
Fibula
Metatarsal
Ds. Tibiae
Pr. 0
I
Ds. Femur
0 ... 1;'0
" ... .&. .L .L ""'m ...... .L
Innominate
I
Camel id
0
0
3
0
~
..J
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
0
4
3
3
Table 7
Cervid
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
o
Minimum numbers of individuals
represented by various elements at Minaspata.
MNI Results
The minimum numbers of individuals data from each of
the Cuzco Valley sites are presented graphically in Fig. 4-
134
7. A comparison between this figure and Fig. 4-4 demon-
strates that the MNI results indicate a much greater rela-
tive importance for the secondary species than was indicated
by the specimen method. Conversely the importance of the
camelids is significantly decreased.
The Reliability of MNI Estimates of Secondary Species
These differing results may be due to a variety of fac-
tors. First, the tendency of the MNI method to exaggerate
the importance of the rarer species has received repeated
comment in the faunal literature. In fact, it has been sug-
gested that a faunal sample must contain at least 300 speci-
mens of a species in order to obtain a realistic MNI
(Gejvall:1969). None of the secondary species from the
Cuzco Valley sites satisfy this requirement, and some are
represented by only one or two specimens.
Secondly, it is unclear whether some of the species
were actually food items or if their remains were acciden-
tally deposited at the site. The skunk bone from
Qhataq'asallacta is a clear example of this problem. This
specimen may not have been the remains of a meal, but for
lack of concrete evidence it will be assumed to have been
food refuse. Similarly, for a variety of reasons it is
Ca."Uelids
79.3%
(23)
MARCAVALLE
Cervids
25%
(2)
Camel ids
50%
MINASPATA
Canids
(2)
Cuys
3.7%
(3)
Others
3.7%
(3)
Canid
3.4%
(1)
ird
(1)
Camelids
86.
(72)
QHATAQ ' ASALLACTA
Figure 4-7 numbers of individuals from the three Cuzco
Valley sites.
135
136
doubtful that the canids should be considered as food items.
None of the canid remains show butchery marks or signs of
burning. Also the modern residents of the southern sierra
look with disdain on canine flesh, and there is very little
ethnohistorical evidence to suggest that the prehistoric
residents of this area possessed a substantially different
attitude. The Incas hunted foxes only as nusiances and kept
domesticated dogs only as pets. However, there is some
indication that some of the Inca's contemporaries did not
have such an aversion to dog meat. The Huanca of Jauja
ceremonially sacrificed dogs instead of llamas and ate the
meat (Guaman Porn a , 1936:267), but this appears to have been
an exception to the general Andean pattern. Hence the canid
remains will be excluded from future food calculations.
The third factor influencing the different resul ts seen
in Fig. 4-4 and 4-7 is that the MNI method estimates the
numbers of animals consumed at the sites but does not take
into account differences of size which may exist between the
species. As mentioned previously the goal of these species
abundance methods is to estimate the relative economic
importance of the species present at the site. Raw MNI
estimates that do not consider, for example, the immense
difference in meat obtainable from one individual llama and
one individual cuy are obviously of little value, and
erroneously inflate the importance of small species. Hence,
137
it is necessary to examine still another method of calculat-
ing species importance.
Weight of Usable Meat
In the same article in which Theodore White proposed
the use of minimum numbers of individuals in archaeological
faunal analysis he recognized the necessity of correcting
MNI estimates according to differing body weights among
species. To this end he drew up a list of the most common
North American game animals and calculated the average
pounds of usable meat that could be derived from one indivi-
dual (White,1953:397). I have compiled a similar list for
the members of the altiplano fauna which were probable food
items in the Cuzco Valley (see Table 8). It will be noted
in this table that the individual species of the camelid
family are listed separately for the first time and that
their average weights vary from 50 to 115 kilograms. In
light of this weight range it seems inadvisable to me to
continue to treat the camelid family as if it were only one
species. Although it is far beyond the scope of this
dissertation to include a thorough study of the problem of
species identification among the South American camelids, in
order to employ the weight of usable meat method it is
necessary to discuss this problem briefly.
138
Species Average
~
usable Weight/ Source
I
10
weight meat Species
Cuy 1 70 0.7 Gilmore
Skunk 3.4 70 2.4 Walker
!l
57.5 Raedeke Guanaco 115
50 .
I I
Gilmore
Llama 115 50 57.5
I
Miller
6
Al paca 55 50 32.5
I
Fernandez
Baca
Vicuna 50 50 27.5 Gilmore
I
Taruka 55 50 27.5 Walker
White-tailed 91 50 45.5 White
deer
Table 8
Weight 0 f usable meat data for al tipl ano fauna.
Camelid Size Differences
As mentioned previously, no morphological features have
been found which can be used to separate fragmentary
archaeological remains of the Andean camel ids accurately and
consistently. However, a size gradient has been observed
among the bones of these animals and it generally conforms
to the following pattern:
139
Largest
Guanaco
Llama
Alpaca
Vicuna
Smallest
Based on this size gradient Elizabeth Wing was able to
employ a multivariate statistical technique (stepwise
discriminant analysis) to a number of measurements taken on
a series of comparative camelid skeletons and separate them
into a group of large ca'llelids (guanacos, llamas) and a
group of small camelids (alpacas, vicunas). This technique,
however, could not accurately discriminate between guanacos
and llamas, nor between alpacas and vicunas (Wing,1972:329).
Encouraged by Wing's initial, albeit qualified, success
I measured as many camelid skeletons as possible during my
stay in South A.'llerica. These measurements have not been
subjected to an exhaustive statistical analysis because the
sample size is not as yet sufficient for such treatment.
However, in an attempt to get an idea of the general tenden-
cies of these measurements I have analyzed four camelid
bones which occur frequently i ~ archaeological samples (can-
nons, calcanea, astragali and proximal phalanges).7
140
Univariate Metrical Analysis
The aforementioned size gradient is clearly demon-
strated by a graphic representation of measurements of the
maximum proximal width of the proximal phalanges (see Fig.
4-8). The means of the four samples are significantly dif-
ferent (p=(.001 according to student's t-test) and the 95%
confidence intervals can be seen to overlap only slightly in
the case of guanacos and llamas. The clear gap in size
between alpacas and llamas corroborates the separation which
l.Jing found between small and large camelids and suggests
that these two species should be fairly easy to "identify"
by means of biometric techniques(at least at sites which are
suspected of contaip.ing only domesticated camel ids) . The
separation between llamas and guanacos is unclear in this
example. On the other hand the vicuna/alpaca separation
suggests that we should be able to n identify" these tv!O
species with some degree of confidence.
However, before becoming inordinately sanguine over the
prospects of identifying the four species of Andean camelids
on the basis of one measurement a cautionary note must be
added. The ranges of size variation among the camelids is
much more confusing when other bones or even different
dimensions on the same bone are examined. For example, the
total length of the proximal phalanges (Fig. 4-9) is much
t
Figure '1-8
Guanaco (N=l1)
Llama (N=22)
----I Alpaca (N=54)
- I Vicuna (N=14)
~ I I I I I
1 13 14 15 16 17
L-J
18 19
. I I I I I I J
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mm.
Modified Dice-Leras diagram of maximum proximal width of camelid proximal
phalanges. Horizontal lines observed ranges; rectangles = one standard
deviation; solid black = 95% confidence intervals for the mean; vertical
lines = means.
-'
.t=
-'
Guanaco (N=ll)
Ii ......
:.-
Llama (N=22)------____ _
Vicufia (N=14)
L t . ~ ~ I 1
446 4 g - - - ~ PX ~ T
1-1 I I I L. II I I I I I I I
56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 mm.
Figure 4-9 l10dified Dice-Leras diagram of maximum length of camelid proxJmal phalanges.
Horizontal lines = observed ranges; rectangles = one standard deviation;
solid black = 95% confidence intervals for the mean; vertical lines = means.
-'
.1=
I\)
143
less encouraging in regard to species separation, with the
exception of the separation between small and large camel ids
which is clearly preserved. This measurement shows almost
complete overlap of alpacas and vicunas and changes their
rank along the size gradient. This tendency toward dispro-
portionately long toes among vicunas may be due to differ-
ences between their adaptation to the high puna and the
alpacas' adaptation to the wetter, spongy "bofedal" pasture
land. In any case the maximum length of the first phalanges
is an example of a number of measurements which were tested
but found to be inaccurate discriminators among the camelid
species.
The 1st phalange's maximum proximal width, however,
appears to be a good discriminator and serves to illustrate
several pOints concerning the application of biometrics to
archaeological camelid bone. The first point to emerge from
the study of this measurement relates to the amount of vari-
ability expected within a species. A statistical indicator
of the homogeneity of zoological population is the coeffi-
cient of variation (V). Based on the comparison of hundreds
of Vs for linear dimensions of mammalian anatomical measure-
ments, Simpson, et ale have concluded that:
.. the great majority of them lie between 4 and 10, and
5 and 6 are good average values Much higher values
usually indicate that the sample was not pure, for
instance, that it included animals of decidely
144
different ages or of different minor taxonomic divi-
sions (Simpson, et al., 1960:91).
If we apply this same criterion to the measurements of
the maximum proximal width of the camelid 1st phalanges from
Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta, Vs of 13.93 and 9.90,
respectively, are obtained. This indicates that neither of
these archaeological camelid samples represent homogeneous
populations and that more than one species may have been
present at each of these sites.
When the Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta distributions
of this phalanx measurement are plotted in histogram fashion
and superimposed over the 95% confidence intervals illus-
trated in Fig. 4-8 a number of interesting points emerge
(see Fi g. 4-1 0)
First, the two samples appear to have quite different
size distributions, Marcavalle lacking the sizable component
of small camelids present at Qhataq'asallacta. In fact,
this impressionistic difference oan be confirmed statisti-
cally. Student's t-test applied to the difference between
the means of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta indicates only
a 1% probability that these two samples could have been
drawn from the same population.
Secondly, the d istr ibutions 0 f both sampl es show a ten-
dency toward bimodality. The Qhataq'asallacta sample is
QHATAQ'ASALLACTA
MARCAVALLE
Figure 4-10
r- -,
12 13
<l
....
n
8,
III
>
t-'
to
III
n
III
20
t"4
i
21 2 23
f
III
n
o
24 25 26 nun.
Distr:Lbutions of maximum proximal width measurements of camelid proximal phalanges
from the sites of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta compared with the 95% confidence
intervals illustrated in Fig. 4-8.
-'
J::'
V1
146
markedly bimodal while Marcavalle may actually be trimodal.
(The small sample size of Marcavalle makes a conclusion dif-
ficult). These modes are separated by an area of minimum
frequency which corresponds roughly to the,gap between the
alpaca and llama 95% intervals. To test whether
the visual impression of correspondence between the archaeo-
logical modes and the comparative llama and alpaca 95% con-
fidence intervals has any statistical basis I separated both
the Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta observations into two
groups with the division at 19.0 mm. Then to check the
hypothesis that these archaeological groups were in reality
alpacas and llamas, respectively, a t-test was performed
upon the differences between their means and the means of
their probable species of origin. In general the resul ts of
these comparisons (see Table 9) support the visual impres-
sian.
None of the chosen pairs were found to be significantly
different at the 0.05 level, and only in the case of the
Qhataq'asallacta large camelids and llamas was a differnce
detected between the 0.2 and 0.1 levels. (This difference
may be due in fact to the disparity in sizes of these two
samples, rather than to any biological reality).
When the 5 Marcavalle observations at the extreme right
end of the scale are excluded from the calculations the
147
Sample pairs
....
d.f.
P
I"
Marcavalle large/ 1 .246 50. 0.3-0.4
Comparative llamas
Marc avaIl e "11 am as" / 0.303 34.6 0.7-0.8
comparative llamas
Qhataq'asa large/ -1.564 29. 1 0.1-0.2
comparative llamas
Qhataq' asa "llamas"/ -1 .921 26.6 0.05-0.1
comparative llamas
Qhataq'asa small/ -1.191 93.2 0.2-0.3
comparative alpacas
Table 9
Student's t-test of proximal phalanx measurements. The term
"llamas" refers to the clusters of large camelids that are
larger than 19 mm., but excludes those larger than guanacos.
remaining large camelids O1arcavalle "llamas") fit even
better with the comparative llamas (p=>O. 7) It is by no
means inconceivable that the five excluded bones may come
from guanacos, or from an extremeley large breed of llamas
no longer extant.
8
Eliminating the two extremely large
observations from the Qhataq'asallacta sample, however,
decreases the degree of fit (p=0.5 - 0.1). Again this is
probably an artifact of the disparate sample sizes.
The elimination of these extremely large individuals
also brings the coefficients of variation (V) for each of
the archaeological "species" to well within the limits of a
homogeneous breeding population as described by Simpson, et
al. (see Table 10).
148
Sample name N mean s.d. V
Marcavalle
37 20.74 2.89 13.93
camel ids
Qhataq'asa 117 19.49 1 .93 9.90
camel ids
Marcavalle 30 21.88 1.76 8.04
large
Qhataq'asa
73 20.75 1 . 14 5.49
large
Qhataq'asa 44 17.41 0.86 4.96
small
I
Marcavalle 25 21 . 19 0.909 4.3
"11 am as"
Qhataq'asa 71 20.64 0.94 4.56
I
" 11 am as"
Comparative 22 21. 31 1 51 7.09
llamas
Comparative 54 17.68 1 34 7.59
alpacas
Table 10
Summary statistics for maximum proximal width of 1st phalanx.
Thus, in summarizing this last section, it can be seen
that the analysis of linear dimensions of Andean carnelid
bones can provide promising criteria for the separation of
an archaeological sample into its component species. Cer-
tainly there is too much intraspecific variability and over-
lap between species to offer much hope of ever being able to
identify an individual specimen by means of univariate
statistics. However, within the Cuzco Valley archaeological
149
sample there seems to be strong statistical evidence which
both indicates clustering of linear measurements within
species-like limits and the association of these clusters:
means with those of known camelid species. Analysis of the
maximum proximal width of the 1st phalanges from Marcavalle
and Qhataq'asallacta indicate that more than one species of
camel id was con sumed at both sites. The most frequently
occuring species at Marcavalle was probably llama, along
with a few individuals which were much 1 arger and a few
which were much sm aller ( see Fig. 4-10) These other groups
are too small for statistical testing and thus no conclusion
can be drawn concerning their identities. The camelids from
Qhataq'asallacta appear to be both llamas and alpacas.
These identities of the two groups are supported by the
likelihood that domesticated camel ids would have been much
more prevalent at an Inca site than wild camelids.
The final point of interest to emerge from Figure 4-10
is that the proportions of large camelids to small ones at
the two sites are quite different. Based on the phalanx
measuremnt only 18.9% of the Marcavalle camelids were of
alpaca size or smaller, while 36.8% of the Qhataq'asallacta
camelid s were from this size range.
150
Bivariate Metrical Analysis
In general bivariate analysis of camelid astragali,
calcanea and distal cannons tends to corroborate the results
of univariate analysis of 1st phalanges. As seen in Figures
4-11 to 4-16 measurements of these bones when plotted
bivariately tend to cluster in a similar fashion to the
phalanges. In all three of these cases large camelids seem
to be fairly well separated from small ones. Guanacos tend
to be at the large end of the large group, but are seen to
overlap to some degree with llamas. The small camelids, on
the other hand, are hopelessly overlapped. Unlike the
situation observed in Fig. 4-8 bivariate analysis does not
promise accurate separation of alpacas and vicunas.
The size character of the archaeological camel ids seen
in these bivariate plots is very similar to that observed
with the linear phalanges measurements. The majority of the
Marcavalle camelids are large and some are as large or
larger than the comparative guanacos. In contrast the
Qhataq'asallacta sample is much more evenly distributed over
the two major comparative groups, and only in the case of
the astragali are there bones that fall within the guanaco
size range.
151
mm. MARCAVALLE

Astragalus
<>
32

<>
<>

<>
<>




29
8

A-A
e





28
2J

0
0
0
0

c
00
0
0
20

0
0
0
Vicuna __
0
0
Alpaca __
0
0
Llams __

0
Guanaco_ <>
0
Marcavalle
unknown_
20 23

29 32 35 38 men.
-...
C-C
Figure 4-11 Bivariate analysis of came lid astragalus maximum
proximal width (A) versus maximum trochlear length (C).
Marcava1le came lid astragali of unknown species
against comparative camelid astragali of known species.
152
mm:
QHATAQASALLACTA

Astragalus
32
29
A-A

26






b
0
, .
0
0
0
00
0
0

23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



b
5

-
-


<>
<>
<> <>

oe.
b





b.


b
Vicuna
Alpaca
Llama
Guanaco
QhataQ'asaliacta
unknown
0
0
b
<>
e

20 23 26 29
C-C
32 35 38 mm.
Figure 4-12 Bivariate analysis of came lid astragalus maximum
proximal width (A) versus maximum trochlear length (C).
Qhataq'asallacta camelid astragali of unknown species
plotted against comparative came lid astragali of known
species.
153
mm.
55
1
-r---
1
--------,
Calcaneum
X
MARCAVALLE
50
45
x
A-A
35
o
o
30
A
o


00
000
8 0
o
o 08 a
o 0
8 0
o

c
o
/::;.
<>
<>
<>
<>

/::;.
/::;.
/::;.

a

/::;. /::;.
/::;./::;.
/::;.
<>
Vicuns ____ _
Alpaca ____ _
Llama ____ _
Guanaco ___ _
o
o
/::;.
<>
Msrcavalle unknown.


50
Figure 4-13
60 70 80
X-X
90 100 110 mm.
Bivariate analysis of camelid calcaneum antero-
posterior width (A) versus maximun length eX). Harcavalle
came lid calcanea of unknown species plotted against compara-
tive camelid calcanea of known species.
154
mm:
QHATAQ'ASALLACTA
__________________ 1
50
45
A-A
40

30
25 I
50
Figure 4-14
Calcaneum
i
60
X
0
A
0

0

0
e
o
08 a
0
0
0
0
0
c
I
I
70
0

e

e
00

0
I
10
X-X
"
-0
b.

b.

eb.
b.b.
b.
i>
I
90
<>
<>
<>
<>
b.
b.
b.
Vicui'\a
0
Alpaca
0
Llama b.
Guanaco ___
<>
Ohataq'asallacta
unknown __

I
110 mm.
I
100
Bivariate analysis of camelid calcaneum maximum antero-
posterior 't..ridth (p..) versus maximum length eX). Qhataq I asa-
llacta came lid calcanea of unknown species plotted against
comparative calcanea of knotm species.
155
mm.
MARCAVALLE

50
45
K-K
30
Distal
Metapodial

0
o
<>
)i
e
b-
b-
b-
b-
b-


<>
<>
<>
6.
b-
.-

b-
Vicuna ____ _
Alpaca ____ _
o
o
Llama l:!.
Guanaco <>
Uarcavalle unknown
<>

25
Figure 4-15
30 35 40
T-T
45 50 55 mm.
Bivariate analysis of camelid distal metapodial maximum
fusion line width (K) versus maximum epiphysis width (T).
Marcavalle distal metapodials of unknown species
plotted against comparative distal metapodials of known species.
156
mm.
OHATAO'ASALLACTA
__________
50
45
K
K-K
40
"",.

30
Distal
Metapodial

I \
0
Q:]
%
0
0
o 0
0
K
T
..
-
0
0
e

c
<>
<>

<>
<>
<>
<>

<> <>
<>
<>
<>
a
:.
a

t.

lea

A
.-
e
a



Vicuna 0
Alpaca 0
Llama
t::.
Guanaco
<>
Ohataq'asallacta
unknown


do 25
Figure 4-16
35 40
T-T
45 50 55 mm.
Bivariate of camelid distal metapodial maximum
fusion line width (K) versus maximum epiphysis width (T).
Qhataq'asallacta camelid distal metapodials of unknown species
plotted against comparative distal metapodials of known species.
157
Multivariate Metrical Analysis
Finally in order to compare the bivariate results with
another form of analysis, and hopefully to "identify" those
archaeological specimens that fall between the large and
small comparative groups, the Marcavalle and
Qhataq'asallacta astragali, calcanea and distal cannons were
subjected to stepwise discriminant analysis. The multivari-
ate procedure used was the subprogram DISCRIMINANT from the
Statistical Package for the Social Sc iences (N
.. le ~ et
al.:1975) performed on the University of California's CDC
6400 computer.
Having observed the high degree of overlap between
alpacas and vicuYlas it was decided to lump these two species
into the category of "small camelids", while preserving the
distinction between llamas and guanacos for the large
camelids. The discriminant analysis decisions are presented
in Table 11 along with the results of the univariate and
bivariate analysis. In all but one case the discriminant
analysis calculated identical proportions of large to small
camelids as did my visual inspection of the bivariate plots.
Only in the case of the Qhataq'asallacta astragali are the
results slightly different, the computer being a bit more
generous in its estimation of territory occupied by llamas.
I
158
Bone Semple Univariate Bivariate Discriminant
Analysis Analysis Analysis
large Small large Small Guanaco Uarra
!v'..arc. 1st Phalanges {B} 81.1% 18.9%
(30) (7)
Qhata. 1st Phalanges (B) 63.2% 36.8%
(74) (43)
Marc. Astragali (C-A) 90.0% 10.0% 60.0% 30.0%
(9) (1) (6) (3)
Qhata. Astragali (C-A) 52.6% 47.4% 13.2%
1
47

4
%
(20) (18) (5) (18)
Marc. Calcanea (X-A) 77.8% 22.2% 33.3% 44.5%
(7) (2) (3) (4)
Qhata. Calcanea (X-A) 41.2% 58.8% 0 41.2%
(7) (10) 0 (7)
I
I '
I
Marc. Cannons (K-T) 76.9% 23.1% 15.4% 61.5%
(10) (3) (2) (8)
Qhata. Carmons (K-T) 72.0% 28.0% 0 72.0%
(18) (7) 0 (18)
Table 11
Comparison of species identification rnetlDds for four
well-represented canelid bones from Marcaval1e and
Qhataq'a.c;a])acta by rreans of univariate, bivariate
and analysis.
Alpaca
Vicufia
10.0%
(1)
39.5%
(15)
22.2%
(2)
58.8%
(10)
23.1%
(3)
28.0%
(7)
159
Summary of Metrical Results
Comparing the results of these three analytical tech-
niques and four different bones a fairly consistent pattern
can be discerned. Although there is a fair amount of varia-
tion in the percentages of small and large camelids between
the different bones, when all four bone categories are
lumped the percentage of Marcavalle specimens judged to be
from small camel ids is calculated as 18.9%, while the per-
centage of Qhataq'asallacta small is 39.6% (chi-
square indicates that these proportions are significantly
different at the 0.05 level).
Applications to Estimation of Weight of Usable Meat
For purposes of calculating tne weight of usable
camelid meat (the perhaps forgotten goal of this long
digression into the province of biometrics and taxonomy) I
have rounded off the Marcavalle and Qhataq' asallacta n small
camelid" percentages to 20% and 40%, respectively9. The
Minaspata sample was too small for statistical tests compar-
able to that shown above,however, the bones examined indi-
cate that both large and small camel ids were present at the
site. Although the proportions of each species are unknown
at Minaspata they have been arbitrarily set at 50:50 for
160
purposes of usable meat calculations.
The estimated numbers of camel ids at each site were
corrected in accordance with the above findings and the
modified MNIs multiplied by the appropriate weight factor
(see Table 12).
Site Spec ies MNI Weight/
Kilos of
Individual Usable Meat
Camel id
23
[:.l
Large(.8) 18.4
57 . 5 10 1058.0
-l
-l Small(.2) 4.6 28.75 132.25
<C
:>
36.5
11
<C
Cervid 4
146.0
u
.:::::
<C
::a:
Bird 1 0.5 0.5
Total
1336.75
Camelid
72
Large(.6)
43.2 57.5
12
2484.0
<C
I
Small( .4) 28.8 32.5 936.0
E-<
U
Cerv id
3 36.5 109.5
<C
-l
-l
<C
0.7 2.1
Cf.l
Cuy
3
<C
a
Skunk 1 2.4 2.4
<C
E-<
<C
Other
13
::c:
3 0.5 1 .5
a
Total
3535.5
I
Camel id 4 43.1
14
172.5
I
<C
36.5
E-<
Cervid 2
73.0 <C
0...
Cf.l
<C
Bird 1 0.5 0.5 :z
H
::a:
Total
246.0
Table 12
MNIs converted to weight of usable meat for Cuzco sites.
I
161
The resulting species percentages are presented graphically
in Fig.4-17 and can be seen to be quite different from the
percentages based on raw MNI estimates. In order to facili-
tate comparisons, the results of the three species abundance
methods discussed in this chapter are also presented in
Table 13.
Spec imen MNI Weight
Method Method Method
t.:J
Camelid 92. 1 79.3 89.04
...J
I
I
...J
I
<l;
::>
Cervid 13.8
<l;
7.3 10.92
u
I
0::
<l;
::E:
Other 0.6 6.8 0.04
.
<l;
Camelid 98.7 86.7 96.73
CI)
<l;
-
0'
Cervid 0.3 3.7 3.10
<l;
E-<
<l;
::r:
Other 1 .3 9.8 o. 17
0'
.
Camel id 78.8 50.0 70.1
CI)
<l;
I I I
z
Cerv id 19.2 25.0 29.6
H
::E:
Other 2.0 25.0 0.3
Table 13
Comparison of the percentage results of three methods of
assessing species abundance for the Cuzco Valley sites.
The most salient difference seen here is in the reduction of
the percentages of the smaller, rarer species to a level
more in keeping with their probable economic importance.
Camelids
89%
large
}fARCAV ALLE
Cervids
11%
I
Cervids
3.1%
Others
0.17%
Cervids
29.6%
Camel ids
70.2%
MINASPATA
Bird
0.04%
small
J
,
,
~ = = = = = = = = = = = = ~ ~ J
large
162
Camel ids
96.7%
QHATAQ'ASALLACTA
Bird
0.2%
Figure 4-17 Weight of usable meat percentages from the three Cuzco
Valley sites.
163
The Problem of Ignoring the Factor
Intuitively this last method would seem to provide the
most accurate estimate of any of the three species abundance
methods. Minimum numbers of individuals, although a neces-
sary first step in the calculation of the weight of usable
meat, do not in themselves accurately represent the relative
economic importance of different species. Raw MNIs are
especially inappropriate for use in the Andes where two of
the most numerically frequent taxa, camelids and cuys, are
so disparate in size (a camelid can provide 82 times as much
meat as a cuy).
This problem is not nearly as dramatic for the Cuzco
Valley sites shown above as for other Andean sites where
cuys have been found to be more abundant. A particulary
impressive of the pitfall of using unmodified MNI
estimates with camelids and cuys is seen in the Mito level
of Kotosh where Wing has reported the following species fre-
quencies (Wing, 1972:331):
Species MNI %
Cuy 36 25
Camelid 21 15
Cervid 85 60
Bird 1
Table 14
MNI data from Mito level at Kotosh
164
These percentages based on raw MNls give the impression
that cervids were by far the most important fauna during the
Mito period, with cuys slightly less than half as abundant
as cervids, and camelids even less abundant than cuys. If,
however, these MNls are corrected for differential body
weigpt the resulting percentages are significantly different
from those calculated by Wing (p=>0.05) and the ranking of
the species is altered.
Species MNI I Weight Factor Usable Meat %
I
Cuy 36 0.7 25.2 0.6
Camel id 15
I
Large(.9) 18.9 57.5 1086.75 25.6
Sm all ( .1) 1 . 1 25.0 27.5
I
0.6 I
Cerv id 85 36.5 3102.50 73.2 I
Table 15
Weight of usable meat from Mito level at Kotosh
When viewed as kilograms of meat cuys are s h o ~ m to be an
almost negligible part of the the dietary intake of this
site, as opposed to 25% of it, while the cerv id/ camel id
ratio is reduced from 4: 1 to less than 3: 1.
16
Of course,
Wing's use of MNls to illustrate relative species abundance
diachronically within a site, or from site to site, is per-
fectly valid. However, I believe the use of weight of
usable meat estimates has the additional advantage of fur-
nishing us with an idea of intra-site, intra-period species
abundance, and the:,efore, provides a better overall picture
165
of faunal utilization.
Chapter 5
THE IMPRINT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR ON CAMELID BONES
The previous chapter has dealt essentially with meat
preferences and the various methods of assessing the rela-
tive importance of different animal species in the diet of
the prehistoric inhabitants of the Valley of Cuzco. This is
an obvious and important first step in the understanding of
any subsistence economy. However, an area of zooarchaeolog-
ical investigation which is potentially still more rewarding
deals not merely with which animal species were exploited,
but goes beyond this initial datum to search for evidence of
human behavior in the treatment of bone. This type of evi-
dence has been described as "cultural patterning in faunal
remains "(Yellen, ms.) and is basically a product of the
kinds of cultural taphonomic factors described in Chapters 2
and 3.
The Background of Differential Representation Studies
The first such evidence of cultural patterning to be
examined here appears to be a universally perplexing problem
confronting zooarchaeologists in all parts of the world.
Simpl y stated this problem is "why do some bones appear in
.. -.... ~ . - .
167
archaeological samples with greater or lesser frequency than
would be expected in an ideal sample." An "ideal sample" in
this instance is one in which all body parts (bone elements)
are represented in the same proportion as they are found in
the complete skeleton of the animal; ie. in a camelid skele-
ton for every 2 distal humeri we would expect to find 8
first phalanges, 7 cervical vertebra, 2 astragali, 1 sacrum,
etc. The differing proportions of bone elements in a com-
plete camelid skeleton are illustrated in the form of a fre-
quency polygon in Figure 5-1. This ideal representation,
however, is rarely, if ever, achieved in a sample excavated
from an archaeological site. Figure 5-2 serves to illus-
trate one example of the kind of discrepancy which is often
found between bone representation in an ideal sample and in
an archaeological sample.
Such differential representation of bone elements has
been viewed by many archaeologists as not only a source of
insight into' aboriginal subsistence behavior, but also
essential to an understanding of species frequencies since
these frequencies are based on the frequencies of bone ele-
ments. Thus, a good deal of recent faunal literature has
been devoted to the explanation of glaring irregularities in
bone element representation. Raymond Dart, for example,
noted that among the bovid remains from Makapansgat in South
Africa humeri were represented by 10 times as many distal
Innominates
Pre Femora
Ds. Femora
Patellae
Pre Tibiae
Ds. Tibiae
Calcanea
Astragali
Tarsals
Pre Metatarsals
Ds. Metapodials
3
0
Phalanges
2
0
Phalanges
1
0
Phalanges
Pre Metacarpals
Carpals

'V6

Mfl
o
o

---
----
"
f"
I

I
T
-
--
-- -=:::.
--
--
"
"""
,,"
--
T
T
J
I
T
+
t

t
_1

-----
----
---------
Ds.
Pr. Radius-Ulnae
---
--
-----
Ds. Humeri
Pr. Humer:i
Scapulae
--,
.
o 0
o C"I

c
co
C
LI"I
-----
o
M
REPRESENTATION ",
--,
o
N


t
t
I

o
,..;
168
c
.....
.
.
XJ
m
"'0
:0
m
CJ)
m
z


-
0
z

0
Ul
'u t:1 I'd t:1 ("') I'd ...... N W tj
n t1 CJl t1 CJl III t1 0 0 O' III
III
.
t1
.
'0
"d
I'd I'd I'd
r! :Il
6?
III ::r ::r ::T
,-,
1-'
M
...... CD III III III it' III
0. 0. CJl rt ...... ...... ...... I..,
(IJ ro CD
III III III

!\)
t1 t1 r:: c: n ::l ::l '0
IJ CJl CJl
III OQ OQ OQ 0
I

CD CD CD P.
Cl I/)
CJl I/)
1-'.

III
III
::l ......
r' (J)
(J)
100 "T-
G'--'=-."'1
90 -I
C:--:::v d
1- C>
II
I I
80 -t
I I
' ,
' I
I I
I I
I
,
I
,
I I
I
,
1,0 I
,
I I
30 I A'
20

I'd
t1
.

CD
rt
III
rt
III
11
(J)
III
......
(J)
11
III
11
(J)
III
......
(J)
i::'
rt
t1
III
()Q
III
......
....
("') t:J
III (J)
...... .
n
III 11
::l
b! CD
III
III
CD
"d "d
t:J "d
H
t1 III (J)
t1
S
.
rt .

CD 0
I-:l ...... a
......
m

1::' 0' III
::J
....
CD 0
III
III t1 t1 rt
It> 1\1 III CD
(J)
,) I., ........ .
.
. 1__ "
gy ... '(j ...... ,
I' ..
-. ., ...
.
---
--...
1.0
0
Figure 5-2 Comparison of ideal representation of cnmelid appendicular elements and
the representation of camelid appendicular elements from the site of
Marcavalle.
lOO
90
80
70
60
50
-40
30
20
10
--'
0\
\D
170
ends as proximal ends (336:33). Similar discrepancies of
representation were noted for other parts of the skeleton
causing Dart to conjecture that:
.. the disappearance of tails was probably due to their
use as signals and whips in hunting outside the cavern
(1957:85).
And that:
The femora and tibiae would be the heaviest clubs to
use outside the cavern; that is probably why these
bones are the least common. Humeri are the most common
of the long bones, probably because they would be the
most convenient clubs for the women folk and children
to use at horne (1957:170).
As might be expected this explanation has met with a good
deal of controversy. C.K. Brain has argued that the propor-
tions of bone elments that Dart found at Makapansgat very
closely approximate the proportions found among modern Hot-
tentot village food remains, and these people, apparently,
are not prone to the outlandish behavior which Dart suggests
fur the osteodentokeratic australopithecines
(Brain,1967,1969).
One of the most well-known, while less inflamatory,
attempts to explain the human behavior behind differential
bone representation was made by Dexter Perkins and Patricia
Daly in their analysis of the faunal remains from the Neol-
ithic site of Suberde in southwestern Turkey (Perkins and
Daly, 1968). This site was characterized faunally by four
171
groups of medium and large sized mammals -- pig, red deer,
oxen and sheep/goat. For purposes of analysis Perkins and
Daly divided the appendicular skeleton into a foot component
(A) and a leg component (B). Dividing the skeleton in this
manner the authors were struck by the fact that oxen were
represented by a preponderance of foot bones over leg bones,
whereas the sheep/goat were represented by nearly equal
numbers of these 2 appendicular components. Making the
assumption that there is no good natural reason why the foot
bones of oxen should preserve better in the earth than their
leg bones, Perkins and Daly sought for a human behavioral
explanation for this skewedness of the sample. They found a
model in the ethnohistory of North American bison hunters
which seemed to provide an adequate explanation. Faced with
the imposing task of hauling an almost 2000 lb. carcass from
the kill site to the site of consumption, the aboriginal
bison hunters often opted for skinning the animal, stripping
the meat from the large and heavy leg bones, throwing these
away at the kill site and then dragging the approximately
1000 lb. meat package to camp in the hide which still had
the feet attached. Perkins and Daly postulated a similar
type of behavior for Suberde, hypothesizing that the ox
bones found in that site were from wild animals which had
been hauled back from outlying kill sites, and that the
sheep/goat were from domesticated herds which were butchered
172
and consumed at the habitation site. Their explanation of
the high frequency 0 f ox foot bones has become immortal ized
in the faunal lexicon as the "schlepp effect" after the Ger-
man (and perhaps Yiddish) verb meaning "to drag."
Since Perkin's and Daly's first proposal of the schlepp
effect a number of other authors have claimed that this same
"phenomenon" is at least partially responsible for the dif-
ferential representation of body parts found in their faunal
samples. Thus, it has recently been suggested that South
African Middle Stone Age hunters selectively brought back to
their living site a disproportionate n u ~ b e r of large bovid
foot bones compared to leg bones for reasons not unlike
those of Suberde (Klein, 1976:87-88). Similar schlepp
explanations have been proposed for Chilean guanacos
(Simons, ms.).
There is no denying the contribution of the aforemen-
tioned studies in suggesting the value of differential bone
representation as a source of information concerning prehis-
toric man-animal relationships. Howe'Jer, as Yellen has
pointed out (ms. :8), the interpretative results of these
studies are weakened somewhat by their reliance upon unil-
ineal causes. Recent ethnoarchaeological investigations
into cultural taphonomy (Brain, 1967, 1969; Yellen, ms.)
have clearly established the impossibility of isolating one
173
single, cultural cause of differing bone frequencies.
Instead a number of different factors seem to be responsi-
ble.
Therefore, it is hypothesized from these African stu-
dies and from the carnelid taphonomy data presented in
Chapters 2 and 3 (see Fig. 3-3 for summary) that the sur-
vival of archaeological camelid bone can be explained rea-
sonably only in terms of multiple causes. In order to exam-
ine this hypothesis let us now turn to some concrete
archaeological examples.
Measures of Skeletal Completeness
The camelid bone element counts for the three Cuzco
Valley sites are presented in Table 15.
Rapid examination of these data reveals that in the two
larger samples nearly all expected camelid skeletal elenients
are present, in greater or lesser numbers (again the Minas-
pata sample is too small to be of much use). The fact that
there are no salient gzps in the skeletal inventory suggests
several things about human behavior.
that the normal procedure at both sites
First, it indicates
was probably to
butcher entire animals and consistently not to discard major
portions of the carcass elsewhere. This implies, of course,
I
174
Element Marcavalle Qhataq'asa Minaspata
Cr anial/Max ilIa 13 9
1
Mandible 13 12 1
Scapula 10 61 4
Humerus 19 73 6
Radius-Ulna 36 116
3
Scaphoid 7 7
2
Lunar 2 4 1
Cuneiform
3
1 1 1
Magnum 2 4 0
Unciform 5 12 0
Pisiform 2 2 0
Metacarpal 17 70 1
1 st Phalanx 115 269 10
2nd Phalanx 55
r- ,..
I
2 ?U
3rd Phalanx 6 6 1
Cannon Condyle 94 367 6
Metatarsal 22
I
56 2
Astragalus 18 84 4
Calcaneum 24 64 5
Nav icular !3 17 1
Cuboid 14
33
2
Ectocuneiform 2 10 2
Fibula 2 1 1 1
Tibia 25 82 5
Patella 6 43 0
Femur 24 114 9
Innominate 23 38 3
Atlas 3
1 0
A
3
is
7
2 7
0
C- -C
*
60
*
Thoracic
*
39
*
Lumbar
*
66
*
Sternabrae 2 1

0
Sacrum 1 0
I
0
Sesamoids 1 0 0
Table 15
Frequencies of camelid skeletal fragments from
Cuzco sites. (* = not counted from this site).
that both Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta ~ e r e habitation
sites, a fact clearly established by other means,
In the cases of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta the
175
above inferences may seem rather obvious. However, in regard
to camelids from more ancient sites and/or secondary species
the degree of skeletal completeness can serve as an impor-
tant indicator of the circumstances under which bones were
deposited in an archaeological site. A number of attempts
have been made to quantify the degree of skeletal complete-
ness between species in a faunal sample; first in paleontol-
ogy (Shotwell, 1955) and later in archaeology (Thomas,
1971). Thomas' method is very involved and, judging from
the examples he provides, seems to have been designed for
the analysis of wild faunas quite different from the Cuzco
Valley situation. Therefore, it is not appropriate to exam-
ine this method in any detail here. However, the end pro-
duct of the method, an index called the "corrected number of
bone specimens per individual (CSI)", is of potential util-
i ty in Andean sites and should be mentioned in passing.
Thomas calculated the following CSls for the fauna of
Hanging Rock Shelter, a Desert Archaic site in northern
Nevada:
M e a d o ~ .. l mouse
Deer mouse
Pocket mouse
Jack rabbit
Cotton tail rabbit
50.9
33.4
28.5
22.9
18.5
176
Wood rat 17.2
Ground squirrel 14.3
Pocket golpher 10.6
Big horn sheep 4.5
Ground-hog
3.5
Muskrat 2.7
Skunk 1.8
Coyote 1.6
Deer 1 .2
The high degree of skeletal completeness of the three
mouse species is judged by Thomas to indicate that they Here
members of the proximal, natural community and were not food
animals. In contrast, the low CSIs of the remaining species
is believed to indicate a high degree of skeletal disruption
caused by human dietary practices that tended to destroy and
disperse the bones of prey-species.
To return to the Cuzco Valley samples: calculations of
CSIs for the Marcavalle and Qhataq' asallacta camelids yields
figures of 27.2 and 26.0, respectively. These CSIs are
quite high in comparison to the Hanging Rock Shelter wild
food species of comparable size (Bighorn = 4.5; Deer = 1.2)
and resemble more closely the rabbits, which were surely
brought back whole to the site, and the intrusive rodents
that are pr esumed to have died on the site. Such hig h CSI
177
figures, of course, can be explained principally by the
domesticated nature of the camel ids presumed to have been
slaughtered and butchered at the sites of Marcavalle and
Qhataq' asallacta. However, the bones of wild camelids from
more ancient sites in the Andes may have been subjected to
entirely different dispersal patterns which would be
reflected in lower CSIs. Future investigators of faunal
samples from preceramic sites in the Andes, therefore, might
consider the study of CSI figures as a possible method of
distinguishing between wild and domesticated camelid
remains.
The corrected number of bone specimens per individual
is a useful indicator of the amount of disturbance suffered
by a faunal assemblage between its extraction from the bios-
phere and its archaeological recovery. However, it does not
provide much information concerning the specific ways in
which human activity could have altered the assemblage along
the taphonomic pathway. For such information we must exam-
ine the relative frequencies of bone elements at Marcavalle
and Qhataq'asallacta more closely.
But first, in order to do this, we must recognize that,
just as in the case of calculations of minimum numbers of
individuals, no standardized procedure has been adopted for
the presentation of differential representation data. This
178
methodological problem must be addressed before proceeding
to more informative areas of interpretation.
A Problem of Counting Units
At issue here is the question of what it is exactly
that we should be counting in studies of differential
representation of body parts. Is it the relative numbers of
skeletal elements that interest us, as in the numbers of
astragali as compared to proximal femora? Or are we
interested instead, in the relative nU'Jlbers of fragments of
astragalus material versus proximal femur material? The two
questions express two different concerns. They are based in
the investigation of two related, but distinct aspects of
hum an behav ior .
The first of these concerns is the more basic, and
appears earlier in the faunal literature in the works of
Dart and Perkins and Daly. It asks the fundamental question
of whether there is some connection between the archaeologi-
cal visibility of separate skeletal elements in a site and
human patterns of use and/or discard of these elements.
This first concern seeks to establish some kind of a causal
link between differential representation and differential
selection and/or use of basic anatomical bone packages. The
focus of this concern lies in natural skeletal units as they
179
appear in the animal, the differential perceptions of these
units by hunters and butchers, and finally, the differential
uses to which these units may have been put in the native
culture.
The second question, while superficially appearing to
be identical, includes an added dimension derived from the
knowledge that archaeological visibility of skeletal ele-
ments is probably never linked unilineally to human behavior
alone, but rather is complicated by a whole host of tapho-
nomic agents. The fccc,nd question recognizes that the ori-
ginal meat/bone units selected by the butcher may have been
altered and fragmented many times over through processes of
cooking, carnivore scavenging, treadage, tool manufacture
and various other factors of attrition. This second ques-
tion is addressed indirectly in the differential representa-
tion studies of Brain (1967,1969), Read (1971), Ziegler
(1973), Klein (1976) and Binford (1977). However, in none
of these works is the unit used in counting skeletal ele-
ments from archaeological faunas explicitly defined. Nor is
it clear how small recognizable fragments should be counted
in relation to large recognizable fragments. Or more
specifically how one is to count a small, but clearly recog-
nizable, fragment from a humerus head; and how one is to
count an entire humerus head which, in some cases, could
have produced 2 or 3 recognizable fragments. In other
180
words, is the faunal analyst to equate the proportions of
twenty complete proximal humerus articulations with twenty
small, longitudinally fractured splinters of distal femur
articulations? This problem is especially important in
Andean sites where so many of the long bone articulations
are fractured longitudinally producing numerous small, but
recognizable, fragments. I have found it necessary, there-
fore, to develop a procedure which takes into account these
differences in fracture pattern, and thereby attempts to
address itself to both of these questions.
involves the following steps:
This procedure
(1) The first step of this procedure is to calculate the
probable number of recognizable fragments (PNRF) for
each element. This calculation is a conservative esti-
mate of the number of recognizable fragments derivable
from one element and is based on the size and geometry
of the bone. In the case of the Andean camel ids it also
is based on observations of contemporary fracture pat-
terns. For sake of simplicity it is assumed that all
appendicular consumption elements (i.e. either articu-
lar ends of long bones or smaller foot bones) could be
broken into two recognizable fragments. (The radius-
ulna is an exception to this rule, in that its geometry
makes it more probable that it could be fractured into
3 recognizable elements.) The fracture of any given
181
element could produce, of cour se, three or even four
recognizable fragments. This fact could alter slightly
the results of the use of PNRF units. However, without
becoming involved in unmanageable attempts to quantify
the exact percentage of the element represented by the
fragment, this assumption seems to prov id e the most
convenient operating procedure.
(2) The PNRF for each element is then multiplied by the
c
.... ,
:51
number of each of these elements in one skeleton. This
product is termed the probable number of recognizable
fragments per individual (PNRF/I).
The PNRF/I for each element is then multiplied by the
minimum number of individuals previously determined for
the site. This product is termed the expected number
of fragments (EMF) \..rhich represents the comparative
figure to which the actual bone counts will be refer-
enced.
(4) The observed number of fragments (ONF) for each element
is calculated in accordance with the rules established
for the probable number of recognizable fragments; e.g.
a complete distal tibia fragment which has been frac-
tured crosswise across shaft is counteed as 2
because it contains 2 PNRFs, whereas a longitudinally
fractured proximal humerus fragment is counted as 1. A
182
complete append ic ul ar bone, such as a tib ia, would be
counted as 4 (2 for the proximal end and 2 for the
distal) .
The advantage of this counting method, over one in
which simple fragments are counted, can best be illustrated
by citing an hypothetical example. In this imaginary
archaeological sample proximal camelid humeri are
represented by 50 fragments and distal camelid tibiae are
likewise represented by 50 fragments. The two elements
would seem to exist in equal proportions in the sample.
However, closer examination of the fragments reveals that
the proportions are not at all equal because the humerus
fragments consist of 48 small, longitudinally fractured
articular fragments and 2 complete articulations, whereas
the 50 tibia fragments consist of 20 longitudinally frac-
tured articular fragments and 30 complete articulations.
The problem of equating the numbers of these two sets of
bones arises from the possibility that some of the small,
longitudinally fractured fragments could have come the
same original bones. For instance, two or more small frag-
ments could represent the same in corpus proximal humerus.
By using the probable number of recognizable fragments
method with the above proximal humeri would be
counted as 48 (numbers of longitudinal fragments) + 2X2
(number of complete humerus articulations X PNRF for the
183
proximal humerus) = 52. In the same fashion distal tib ia
would be counted as 20 (number of longitudinal fragments) +
30X2 (number of complete distal tibia articulations X PNRF
for the distal tibia) = 80. Thus, the ratio of proximal
humeri to distal tibiae is calculated not as 1:1, as indi-
cated by a simple count of the number of fragments, but as
50:80 or 1:1.6. I believe that this method is a much more
accurate reflection of the true archaeological visibility of
skeletal elements recovered in an archaeological sample.
(5) Finally, the survival percentage of each consumption
element is calculated by dividing the observed number
of fragments (ONF) by the expected number of fragments
(ENF)
A complete tabulation of these calculations for the
Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta samples is presented in
Table 16.
Cuzco Valley Differential Representation
Having dispensed with the methodological problems
described in the past pages we can now examine the differen-
tial representation from Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta for
evidence of cultural patterning. We should expect that such
cultural patterning may be revealed by intrasite differen-
184


I I A.SAI..IAc-J.:A
Elerrent PNRF PNRF/I ENF OOF
'" Em' CNF %
""
M3xilla 2 4 92 10 14.1 288 12 4.2
M3ndib1e 2 4 92 13 '8 -
.L .::> I 288 15 5.2
Scapula 2 4 92 10 10.9 288 61 21.2
Pr. Hum
.....
4 92 11 12.0 288 21 7.3 .I:.
Ds. Hum 2 4 92 16 17.4 288 87 30.2
Pr. Rad-Ul 3 6 138 26 18.8 432 116 26.9
Ds. Rad-Ul 2 4 92 25 27.2 288 81 28.1
carpal 2 28 644 42 6.5 2016 80 4.0
Pr. M::: 2 4 92 21 22.8 288 97 33.7
1st Phal 2 16 368 178 48.4 1152 487 42.3
2nd Phal 2
!
16 368 103 28.0
1
1152 99 8.6
3rd Phal 2
. -; t::: : -:l&;.Q
12 12 1.0 .... v oJ v..., 3.3 1152
Ds. cannon 1 8 184 96 52.2 576 286 49.7
Pr. MI' 2 4 92 28 30.4 288 84 29.2
Tarsal 2 12 276 51 18.5 864 131 15.2
Astragalus 2 4 92 35 38.0 288 133 46.2
calcaneum 2 4 92 41 44.6 288 78 27.0
Ds. Tibia 2 4 92 24 26.1 288 79 27.4
Pr. Tibia 2 4 92 11 12.0 288 41 14.2
Patella 2 4 92 12 13.0 288 68 23.6
Ds. Farrur 2 4 92 9 9.8 288 61 21.2
Pr. Farrur 2 4 92 21 22.9 288 67 23.3
Innaninate 2 4 92 23 25.0 288 38 13.2
Atlas 2 2 46 6 13.0 144 2 1.4
Axis 2 2 46 4 8.7 144 14 9.7
C3-C7 10 10 50 ?
--
720 ?
--
TlDracic 2
I
24
I
552 ?
--
1728 ?
--
Lumbar 2 14 322 ?
--
1008 ?
--
Tot. Vert 18 52 1196 504 42.1 3744 480 12.8
MIT 23 72
Table 16
Frequencies and percentage sw:vi val of appendicular and
axial rone elements frem M3rcaval1e and Qhataq' asa11acta.
PNRF=probab1e nuriber of recognizable frag:nen:cs; PNRF II=
probable number of recognizable fragrrents per individual:
number of fragrrents: ONF= obse..-rved number of
fragnents; %= percentage survival.
185
tial representation of body parts, as well as by contrasts
between the representation of elements from the Marcavalle
and Qhataq'asallacta samples. Figure 5-3 is provided as a
graphic display of these contrasts among the Marcavalle and
Qhataq'asallacta camelid appendicular elements.
Two aspects of differential representation are immedi-
ately evident upon inspection of this figure. First, there
is a high degree of variability in survival or archaeologi-
cal visibility betwen the skeletal elements, and second, the
patterns of survival of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta ele-
ments are quite similar, with a few exceptions. Let us
first discuss the intrasite variabiltiy and attempt to
interpret this variabity in light of the ethnozoological
data discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.
Intra-site Differential Representation
The mean survivorship
fairly consistent between
for all skeletal elments is
the two sites: 23.4% for Marca-
valle and 21.5% for Qhataq'asallacta. However, as observed
in Figure 5-3, the survival rates of indivual bones within
the sites vary much more dramatically: between 52.2% for
Marcavalle distal metapodials and 1.0% for Qhataq'asallacta
ungual phalanges.
Innominates
Pro Femora
Ds. Femora
Patellae
Pro Tibiae
Ds. Tibiae
Calcanea
Astragali
Tarsals
Pr. Metatarsals
Ds. Metapodials
3
0
Phalanges
2 Phalanges
1
0
Phalanges
Pro Metacarpals
Carpals
Ds. Radius-Ulnae
Pr. Radius-Ulnae
Ds. Humeri
Pro HUI:leri
Scapulae

I
I
.
':.._---,,""
=
-
()
.!:
=
III
.=
a
=
a;
s:
o
186
o
---
i I

o
...0
o
U'\
o 0 0 0 o
..::t t"\ N -
", SURVIVAL
E
o
1-1

CIl
.j..I
c::
ClI
E
ClI

ClI
1-1
Ctl

;::l
t)

"1:l
c::
Q)


Ctl

o
c::
o

.j..I
Ctl
.j..I
c::
ClI
0)
ClI
1-1

ClI
1-1
Ctl
.j..I
Ctl t)
Ctl
.j..I .....
c:: .....
ClI Ctl
1-1 CIl
ClI Ctl

...... 0"
Ctl
"1:l.j..l
Ctl
ClI.c::
.c:: 0-
.j..I
"1:l
c::
o Ctl
c:: ClI

0) .....
Ctl
1-1 >
Ctl Ctl

E 1-1
o Ctl
Q;E
187
This variability can best be understood in terms of
major bone rather than individual bones. The
survival rates of the five major bone complexes (excluding
the ribs) from the two sites are presented in Table 17.
MARCAVALLE QHATAQ'ASALLACTA
I
ENF ONF % ENF ONF %
Head 184 30 16.3 576 27 4.7
Vertebra 1196 504 42. 1 3744 480 12.8
Fore-limb 506 88 17.4 1584 366 23.1
Hind-limb 552 100 18. 1 1728 354 20.5
Feet 1564 553 35.4 4896 1395 28.5
Table 17
Bone group survival rates at Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta.
ENF=expected number of fragments; ONF=observed number of
fragments; %=group survival percentage.
These group survival rates indicate a number of
interesting tendencies, some consistent between the sites,
and others indicating cultural differences between Marca-
valle and Qhataq'asallacta.
Cranial Representation
First, head parts (mandibles and maxillae) have a low
archaeological visibility at both sites and show a
188
particularly low survival rate at Qhataq'asa11acta (4.7%).
This is quite unexpected, since these parts have the reputa-
tion of being the most durable and diagnostic of faunal
remains. Mandibles, especially, are often reported in the
literature to have the highest survival rate of any bone on
a site and are used for that reason as the basis of MNI cal-
culations. The low rate of survival of these elements in
the Cuzco Valley samples may be due to a number of tapho-
nomic factors.
As mentioned in Chapter 2 the contemporary Andean prac-
tice is to fracture the skull into 5 pieces during prepara-
tion for cooking. The mandible is broken into four frag-
ments (see figs. 2-5 and 2-6). This consumption fracturing
may have been even more severe in antiquity. The great
majority of cheek tooth rows were found broken at Marcava11e
and Qhataq'asallacta. These cheek tooth rows were usually
found intact in the controlled consumption experiments.
Another factor which may have influenced the survival
of maxillae and mandibles is the nature of the high Andean
environment. While collecting surface bone scatter at La
Raya, Tuqsa and Huaycho, I was struck by the fragility of
the teeth that I picked up. For some reason the teeth
seemed to have suffered more than other skeletal material.
This damage may be a result of surface exposure to unfil-
189
tered ultra-violet rays and/or severe fluctuations in diur-
nal temperatures. Although I have no substantive data to
support it, I suspect that these physical factors, when com-
bined with the cultural factors of fracture, may result in
badly damaged cranial material which has a low survival
rate.
Fore-quarters versus hind-quarters
The second general tendency revealed by Table 17 is
that fore-limbs and hind-limbs are represented in approxi-
mately equal proportions.
Fore-limb
Hind-limb
MARCAVALLE
88
100
QHATAQ'ASALLACTA
366
354
The chi-square statistic indicates that observed variations
in fore-limb versus hind-limb frequencies are not signifi-
can t (p= > 0 5) .
This pattern differs from that found among some wild
prey species in other parts of the world. For example, Read
has observed that reindeer remains from Upper Paleolithic
sites in Germany show a consistent preponderance of front
limbs over hind limbs (1.4:1 - 1.8:1). From these data she
concludes that a large ~ ~ ~ ~ e r of kills took place at suffi-
190
cient distance from the site, so that the hunters were at
times forced to select only the most desirable portions of
the carcass, and to leave the rest in the field (Read,
1971:133).1 Conversely, she concludes that the hind-quarters
of deer were prefered over fore-quarters at the California
Indian site of CA Lan-243v (Read,1971:161).
That a similar disproportionate representation of front
or hind parts is absent at Marcavalle or Qhataq'asallacta is
not surprising. Factors of transport are not applicable to
domesticated animals butchered and consumed at the home
site, and contemporary patterns of usage among Andean pas-
toralists show no preference for either the f6re or hind
limbs of camelids.
South American s ~ h l e p p ?
The third general tendency indicated in Table 17 is
that foot elements (carpals, tarsals, metapodials and
phalanges) show a much higher survivorship than upper leg
elements. This is particulary true at Marcavalle where
podial elements survived at double the rate of leg elements.
The preponderence of foot elements also can be observed in
Figure 5-3 where the highest percentages peak in the center
of the diagram (foot bones) and taper off to either side
(leg bones). This over-representation of foot bones consti-
191
tutes the most salient feature of these samples, and pro-
vides a point of departure for exploration into the reasons
behind the total pattern of differential representation.
The over-representation of foot bones is also strongly
reminiscent of our old friend, the schlepp effect. Is it
possible that there was a South American schlepp for the
camelids, as well? The schlepp effect, or a related
phenomenon, has been proposed as an explanation for the dif-
ferential representation of Andean camelid bones on at least
two occasions.
In a paper presented at the 1973 meetings of the
Society for American Archaeology, Dwight Simons, of the
University of California at Davis, argued that the camelid
remains from the preceramic sites of T a r a p a c ~ in northern
Chile suggest that the inhabitants of this area were guanaco
hunters and that they schlepped their kills back to their
home bases. In his analysis of the faunal remains from
T a r a p a c ~ Simons found that camel ids were represented by
88.2% foot bones (as compared to leg bones). This is an
even greater preponderance of podial elements than Perkins
and Daly had encountered at Suberde. In that Early Neol-
ithic site the authors had found that 83% of the oxen (Bos
primegenius) were represented by foot bones, in contrast to
the sheep/goat which were represented by only 55% foot
192
bones. From this point of reference, Simons was convinced
that the only reasonable explanation for such a high percen-
tage of foot bones at the Tarapacc\ sites was that
gaunaco hunters were engaged in "even greater schlepping."
(Simons, ms.)
In her analysis of the camelid remains from Kotosh
Elizabeth Wing (1972) also concerned herself with the dif-
ferential representation of body parts. She notes that "the
bones less frequently found than would be expected are all
those from the lower part of the limbs" (p.337), and that
"the main muscle bearing bones of the limb, the humerus and
femur, are for the most part represented more frequently
than expected" (p.338). Although she provides no figures
that can be converted to limbs versus feet percentages, it
is clear from the text that something akin to the opposite
of the Tarapacc\ and Suberde situations was operating at
Kotosh. H'ing interprets the paucity of camelid podial ele-
ments as a resul t of: 1) the metapodials becoming al tered
beyond recognition through the process of tool manufacture
(a destiny to which the long, straight shafts of the metapo-
dials are particlularly well suited) and, 2) the toe bones
being left with the skin after butchei
4
Y. This second expl a-
nation is, of course, the same as the schlepp effect but in
reverse direction. In this case the butchery procedure is
the same as with its Turkish cousin -- foot bones are left
193
on the hide. However, instead of using the hide to schlepp
the butchered meat back to the base camp, the" ant-5.-schlepp"
butchers of Kotosh discarded or traded away the skin along
with its foot bones. The result of this practice, according
to Wing, was a net loss of foot bones from the exc8vated,
residential areas of the and consequently an under-
representation of these elements in the archaeological sam-
pIe.
How do these two situations compare with those from the
Cuzco Valley and what light can the ethnozoological data
shed on the interpretation of a high representation of foot
bones in camel id assemblages? The of foot
bones at Marcavalle and is 79.7% and 70.5%,
respectively. These percentages, although not as high as
those from the Tarapacc! camelids or the Suberde oxen, are
much higher than the Suberde sheep/goat (55%) which were
presumed to be domesticated and butchered at the occupation
si te. The Cuzco foot percentages are even higher in compar-
ison with two other domestic animal samples: 32.1% for C.K.
Brain's study of Hottentot goat bones and 26.2% for
Binford's and Bertram's stud y 0 f Nav aj 0 sheep bones ( see
Figure 5-4 for a graphic comparison of all these samples).
Is it possible that the Cuzco Valley camel ids were wild and
were schlepped back to the habitation site in a similar
fashion to that suggested for Suberde and Tarapacc!? This
90
ISO
'I,
'70
80
50
30
20
10
79.7
til


u


<
i
70.5
til
0
H
t-1

t.J

t.J
j

til
<
-


CI
88.3
70.9
til
0
,1-1
t-1


t.J
C,!)
<

t.J
<
0

t.J



1 1 1 :: . >'1 1
100
83.0
0/0

'" . " . i




70
58.15 leo
50
I
!Xi

o ,:i,,\i d 1-40



\" "
1-30
55.0

0
til

t:
0
rz.l
C,!)

........
Il-,
til
1%.1


til
u
1-20



;J
rz.l
til
,.L )ii,
, 10

I
I
til
Sl
;. ' ,
I
. ,
:, :" .. : ..
'. '.'", '>
<.'
I,'
r
0
'I.- .:
O
I I I I . I 1 '.. I '
.'" . k ,1 ' __ 1/ I I
Figure 5-4
comparison of foot versus leg bone representation from a number of man-animal
situations. Tarapaca, Chi1e:Simons, n.d.; Kotosh, Peru:Wing, 1972; Suberde,
Turkey:Perkins and Daly, 1968; Hottentots:Brain, 1969; Navajo:Binford and
Bertram, 1977; Star Carr, England: Read, 1971.
->
\0
-'=
195
seems highly unlikely for a number of reasons, not the least
of which is that the great majority of all other evidence,
both faunal and otherwise, indicates that Marcavalle and
Qhataq'asallacta were village sites occupied by sedentary,
ceramic-making peoples with access to agricultural products
and domesticated herds. Widespread hunting away from the
occupation site is certainly not indicated for Inca
Qhataq'asallacta, and there is little evidence to suggest
more than a secondary role for hunting at Marcavalle. In
addition, I believe that the schlepp model may not be
entirely applicable to the South American camel ids and that
there exist a number of other taphonomic factors which could
have played significant roles in the particular foot/leg
representations observed at Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta.
These issues are numerous and will be discussed systemati-
cally in terms of a series of factors.
1) Do you really need to schlepp a guanaco? In bandy-
ing about the term "schlepp" over the past several pages its
full meaning may have been diluted. It must be remembered
that this phenomenon was originally proposed to explain the
method devised by hunters to butcher a large ungulate most
efficiently and to transport large quantities of meat over a
considerable distance from the kill site to the camp site.
In addition, the original schlepp effect involved three com-
ponents important to later differential representation: a)
196
the discard of heavy long bones in the field after having
stripped them of meat, b) retaining the foot bones on the
skin which was used as a container for the meat and, c)
dragging the heavy meat and foot bone bundle back to the
habitation site. Thus, the schlepp effect was the solution
to a subsistence problem, a problem made especially acute
because the prey animals weighed over 900 kilos.
Adult guanacos from Tiera del Fuego average about 100
kilos, with a recorded maximum of 149 kilos (Raedeke,
1975:4). Peruvian and Northern Chilean guanacos are
believed by some 1913) to average somewhat
smaller. Thus, if we use White's 50% of usable meat rate,
the guanaco hunter would be faced with hauling some 40-70
kilos of usable guanaco meat from the kill site to the camp
site. The Ona of Tiera del Fuego apparently found this an
entirely manageable task for one man. Bridges recounts a
case in which an Ona hunter carried parts of two guanacos
weighing over 300 lbs. for a distance of over a mile. The
method used is described as follows:
If it was intended to carry the meat more than a short
distance, the Ona hunter would make a neat bundle of
it, and would then tie it with a thin hide called moji,
which he always carried with him . these lines were
fitted over the carrier's shoulders and across his
chest, so that he was enclosed in a network. The bur-
den rested on his hips, and he walked with his body
stooping forward. The advantage of this mode of pack-
ing was that the weight, by being rested on the hips,
tired only the legs, whereas on the shoulders it would
have fatigued the whole body. It was particularly
197
suitable for carrying heavy loads a long distance
(Bridges, 1948:257).
It seems unlikely, therefore, that aboriginal guanaco
hunters would have found it necessary to employ the full
schlepp method. They may have utilized the skin and the
feet as a for this would have been a convenient
and logical device, but they most certainly would not have
felt compelled to strip and discard the long bones.
2
Such
discard also seems unlikely on the grounds that it would
mean a loss of marrow, a nutrient which the Ona definitely
enjoyed (Bridges, 1948:197).
However, without examining the original data it would
be presumptuous of me to deny the possibility that the
guanaco hunters were employing a modified schlepp
method. Despite the fact that the schlepp method may not
have been absolutely necessary for the subsistence of the
Tarapaquenos, they may have used it for reasons that only
they would understand. Something certainly caused foot
bones to out-survive leg bones by a ratio of almost 9:1!
2) Is a 88%,83% or 79% foot bone representation grossly
out of line, compared to the normal representation of these
bones in a camelid skeleton?
As illustrated in Figure 5-4, the foot/leg ratio is
198
approximately 7:3 in the ungulate skeleton. However, this
figure is derived from my own method of counting bone frag-
ments (calculating PNRFs, etc.). When more traditional
methods of counting bones are used, the percentage of foot
bones in an ungulate skeleton rises to around 80%. The
method apparently used by Dwight Simons for the T a r a p a c ~
camelids yields a figure of 80%.
Three points must be made about this situation.
Firstly, foot representation percentages of 70-80% are not
all that out of line with what one would expect from an
ungulate skeleton. The 79.7% figure for Marcavalle is only
slightly high and the 70.5% figure for Qhataq'asallacta
corresponds almost exactly with my calculated norm of 71%.
Likewise, the 88% foot representation at T a r a p a c ~ is not
entirely inconsistent with Simons' calculated norm of 80%.
Perhaps then, in the absence of other complicating agents of
attrition, we should consider schlepp-like foot bone percen-
tages to reflect more nearly normal representation of these
elements, and our efforts should be concentrated on explain-
ing percentages that fall far below the 70-80% norm. It may
be that it is really the 55% figure for the Suberde
sheep/goats that should make us suspicious of human inter-
vention.
The second point, however, is the more important and
199
should be taken as a caveat. The fact that different faunal
analysts can arrive at different figures for the normal pro-
portion of foot bones in the ungulate skeleton indicates
that there is most probably variation in their methods of
countj.ng archaeological bone fragments as well. This under-
scores the necessity of arriving a ~ some standardization in
these methods, so as to make the works of separate investi-
gators more compatible.
Thirdly, despite the lack of consensus concerning
schlepp effect foot bone percentages, we should not abandon
all attempts to quantify the phenomenon. Lynch's recent
suggestion that at Gu i tarrero Cave the "usel ess bones [of
brocket deer] were left behind, while the meat was perhaps
carried home in a hide bundle with the feet still attached"
is supported solely by a statement concerning " .. the
predom inanc e of foot bones . " (Lynch, 1978: 476) What does
predominance mean and which foot bones are being referred
to?
The forum of the above reference is a textbook anthol-
ogy and, thus, the lack of quantified data is somewhat
understandable. However, I find such a tantalizing argument
extremely frustrating without the details.
3) Are there factors of differential durability that could
contribute to a schlepp-like survival pattern of skeletal
elements in an archaeological sample?
200
As discussed in Chapter 2 there is a wide variation in
the density of bone elements in the camelid skeleton, rang-
ing from 0.9 for the distal femur and proximal humerus to
more than 1.8 for the metapodial elements. A review of Fig-
ure 2-15 illustrates that camelid foot elements tend to be
denser than most long bone articulations. In this regard it
is instructive to compare the results of bone density deter-
minations from other ungulates. Binford and Bertram (1977)
have performed density determinations on the bones of sheep
and caribou. Although the circumstances and methods of
these determinations were quite diferent from mine, a com-
parison between the two sets of results is quite interest-
ing. Figure 5-5 illustrates this comparison between cari-
bou, sheep and camelid bone densities. The most salient
aspect of this figure is the contrast in densities of foot-
bones. The densities of the articular ends of long bones
coincide closely among the three taxa, but the camelid foot
bones are significantly more dense than the corresponding
bones from sheep and caribou. This contrast is especially
evident among the phalanges and metapodials, and somewhat
less so among carpals and tarsals.
It is tempting to pounce on this foot density contrast,
2.0
1.9
1 .n
1.7
1.(,
1

C
m 1.4
z
1.3
....
-< 1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.0
.7
Ul "tl t:l o,j
t:l 0 o,j
.-. N W t:l o,j

g;-
o t:l o,j o,j
t:l tU H
n Ii I/)
Ii I/)
III Ii 0 0 0 I/)
Ii III III
I/)
Ii III I/) Ii
g
III
. . .
Ii
.
. .
t1 rt .-. . .
rt
. .
'0
"d o,j o,j o,j
I/)
t1 n (ll
0


!:xl

:;Q III :;(
P' P' P' :;(
III III

.-. t'Ij t'Ij Jj
.-.
5
III .-. (ll
III III III (ll (ll .-. ()Q ...,. ...,.
.-.
m m
...,. III p.
P-
I/)
rt .-. .-. .-. f1- rt I/)
III (ll tT' tT' III

(ll (ll (ll ...,. ...,.
III

III

III .-. III
...,. ...,.
(ll
0 0 III
Ii Ii l. n
I=' rt ...,.
III III t1 t1 rt
...,.

I/) I/)
III ()Q OQ ()Q
0 III (ll (ll
III III (ll I I

(ll (ll (ll
P. t1
I/) C1 C1 I/) I/) I/) ...,.
I/)
.-.

III
III III
.-.
.-'
.-.
III III I/)
I/)
m

i ....
\\h.t: (
I.

[!j " ..
;:::::.::::J <>::.J <:I
\ .' 1.1
'.'

t::::::::D C>
,
'\ ' 'V "
__ ..... , ' I / \
/ \
I j'/ ...,/ -.......... /
\ /.1
\ Ii'
\ J
1/

\ I

---
Came lids
Caribou
Sheep
.. --.,
---_.!.'
,
I
I
Figure 5-5 Comparison between the densities of came lid, caribou and sheep appendicular
elements (caribou and sheep data from Binford and Bertram, 1977).
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1 I
J
.;J
Lit
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
I\)
0
->
.1
202
and to proclaim that this alone is the reason for the high
survival of camelid podial elements in the Cuzco sites and
the usual low survival rate of these elements among other
zooarchaeological species. There are reasons for caution,
however. In the first place foot bones do not always
preserve well in Andean sites. Thus, other factors besides
the density constant seem to affect their archaeological
survival. Secondly, my procedure of density determination
contrasts with that employed by Binford and Bertram, and
therefore, there is no assurance that the two sets of
results are completely comparable.
On the other hand, it may be that for some unknown evo-
lutionary reason the engineering of the tylopod hoof has
produced much denser podial elements than in other ungulates
which have been tested. If this is the case, we would be
forced to disagree with Binford and Bertram's assertion that
n research aimed at increasing the documentation [of bone
density] of species other than [sheep and caribou] may be
selective rather than exhaustive .. (Binford and Bertram,
1977:149), and to respond that perhaps an adequate evalua-
tion of the role of density in bone survival can only be
achieved after density determination have been performed on
a wide range of mammalian skeletons. However, such a
response must await camelid bone density determinations
which attempt to replicate the procedure utilized by Binford
203
and Bertram.
4) Are there factors of butchery, cooking and consump-
tion fracture that could contribute to a schlepp like survival
pattern of bones in an archaeological sample?
Deductively we would predict that a differential
representation pattern resembling the schlepp effect could
be produced by fracturing practices which would normally
leave foot bones intact but would damage a large number of
long bone articulations beyond recognition. Furthermore, we
would predict that longitudinal fracturing of long bone
articulations would both reduce the size of the bone frag-
ments to be recognized, and would increase the exposure of
fragile cancellous bone in the articular ends of less dense
long bones to agents of decomposition. The sum of these
practices would tend to decrease the archaeological visibil-
ity of the long bones, and concomitantly increase the
archaeological visibility of the foot bones.
In general, these are the fracturing practices observed
among contemporary native butchers of the southern highlands
of Peru. As described in detail in Chapter 2, the majority
of camelid bones, both from the upper legs and from the
feet, are fractured only crosswise across the shaft, or not
at all. The longitudinal fracturing of long bones is
204
normally reserved for the spongy articulations of the proxi-
mal humerus, proximal femur, distal femur, and proximal
tibia. The controlled consumption experiments demonstrated
that, as a consequence of this fracturing practice, frag-
ments from these elements were reduced in size and their
probability of being recognized by a faunal analyst was also
reduced.
In order to both compare the contemporary fracture pat-
terns with archaeological fracture patterns and to c h e ~ ~ the
correlation between archaeological fracture and other bone
attributes, I have devised a typology of bone fracture. The
most common long bone fracture possibilities are illustrated
in Figure 5-6 along with their computer code numbers. The
complete fracture typology is described in Appendix 2.
As with many typologies, especially experimental first
attempts, this bone fracture typology was not a complete
success. This partial failure was due principally to the
subjectivity involved in deciding between two closely
related fracture types. The distinction between types 07
and 08, for example, is not always clear when examining
archaeological bones in the laboratory. This difficulty has
produced
analysis.
3
an undesired lack of replicability in the
However, despite these qualifications the bene fracture
\
U
13 14 15
~
,
I
~
~ ~
C l ~
~
~
04
2f3
27
05
06 07 08
~ ~
~ 1
1 ~
M
q
OV
10
11
12 17 18 19
Q ~
23 24
Figure 5-6 Basic bone fracture typology (see Appendix 2 for
descriptions and additional categories.
205
206
typology has been useful in a number of ways. It served to
focus the analyst's attention on the ways in which bones
from the Cuzco Valley samples were fractured. It also
alerted the analyst to the possibility of continuity between
archaeological fracture patterns and known ethnographic
practices. In general, the fracture patterns of modern
bones from Tuqsa and Huaycho show striking similarities to
those from Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta. This continuity
in fracture practice is especially relevant in terms of the
bones which normally receive longitudinal marrow fracturing,
and those which are fractured merely across the shaft, or
not at all. The numbers of bones in each of these
categories from Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta are
presented in Table 18.
4
When the separate bone elements are
combined into groups which correspond to major differences
in ethnographic fracture an even more salient pattern
emerges. The longitudinal fracturing of the marrow-rich,
cancellous articulations of the proximal humerus, proximal
femur, distal femur and proximal tibia is observed to have
been significantly more frequent among both archaeological
samples than this kind of fracturing of the denser long bone
articulations or the bones of the foot (see Table 19).
Given our original hypothesis concerning the corelation
between longitudinal fracturing and low archaeological visi-
bility, it is not surprising that the archaeological data
Element
Pr. H..::m
05. Hum
Pr. R-U
Ds. R-U
carpal
Pr. M:
0
1 Pm1
2
0
Phal
3
0
Phal
05. can
Pr. Mr
Tarsal
Ast
cal
Ds. Tib
Pr. Tib
Ds. Fen
Pr. Fan
~ C A V A L L E QHATAQ' ASALIACI'A
No Fracture or lDngi tOOinal No Fracture or ! lDngi tudinal
Crosswise Frac Fracture Crosswise Frac Fracture
3 3 50.0% 8 5 38.5%
10 2 17.0% 28 10 26.3%
10 6 37.5% 28 17 37.7%
15 1 6.3% 25 5 16.6%
21 0 0% 40 0 0%
13 4 23.5% 22 13 37.1%
106
I
9 7.8% 143 5 3.4%
54 1 1.8% 48 2 4.0%
6 0 0% 6 0 0%
32 41 56.2% 121 90 42.7%
9
I
13 59.1% 28
I
14 33.0%
8.3% 22 2 50 6 10.7%
16 2 11.1% 50 15 23.1%
16 6 27.3% 23
I
15 39.5%
10
I
4 28.6% 28
1
6 17.6%
5 5 50.0% 19 3 13.6%
5 3 37.5% 22 15 40.5%
4 11 73.3% 17 15 46.8%
Table 18
Frequencies of carne1id appendicular elements frcrn
Marcavalle an:l Qhataq'asal1acta. which "Were observed
to 1::e fractured crosswise or not at all versus trose
fractured longitudinally.
207
I
208
QEATAQ I ASALlACI'A
Bone Group MLTlirral or longitudinal Minirral or
i
IDngitudinal
No Fracture Fracture No Fracture Fracture
Spongy brnb 17 22 66 38
elements 56.4% 36.5%
D::mse Illnb 45 13 109 40
elements 22.4% 26.8%
Foot 295 13 340 70
elements 20.9% 17.1%
Table 19
Ccrrp'3.rison of min:i.rral fracture (crosswise or none) versus
longitudinal rrarrow splitting arrong three rrajor rone groups
of the cancl.id appendicular skelton. Sp:>ngy limb elements =
proxirral humerus, proxircal femur, distal ferrur, proxircal
tibia; de...'1Se Illnb elements = distal hLlrrerus, proxi..T!8.1 radius-
ulna, distal radius-ul..?')3, distal foot elenents = carpals,
tarsals I metapcxlials and ph3.l.a..'1ges.
209
demonstrate that those elements that have the highest fre-
quency of longitudinal fracture also are the most con-
sistently under-represented in the Cuzco samples. The fac-
tor of reduced recognizability seems to be particularly
acute among the spongy articulation group. 78% of those
bones classified as l1artiodactyltt (on the grounds that the
element could be identified but the fragment was too small
to distinguish between camelid or cervid) were from this
group.
5) Are there carnivore scavenging factors which could
contribute to a schlepp-like survival pattern of camelid
in an archaeological sample?
Due to the present inaccessability of the ethnographic
bone scatter and excavation samples, I have only impressions
with which to address this question. However, these impres-
sions are of some value and worth relating. While collect-
ing these ethnographic samples, especially the bone surface
scatter, I was struck by the numerous signs of dog gnawing.
This carnivore damage appeared to be particularly frequent
on spongy articular ends such as the proximal humerus. This
stands to reason, for the dogs certainly know which are the
most nutritious and pleasurable bones to gnaw on. If this
impression is confirmed by future study of these bones, it
210
may demonstrate yet another factor of attrition operating
differentially on leg bones as opposed to foot bones. Thus,
this factor would be another contributor to a schlepp-like
surv iv al pat tern.
6) Are there meat distribution factors which could con-
tribute to a schlepp-like survival pattern of camelid bones
in an archaeological sample?
Hypothetically, we might predict that the behavioral
pattern which would produce such a differential representa-
tion would be one in which a higher proportion of upper leg
elements than foot elements would be distributed away from
the habitation site. This practice would tend to reduce the
representation of leg elements and inflate the representa-
tion of foot elements at the site. This is precisely the
pattern observed in the modern practice of charqui manufac-
ture described in Chapter 3. As part of this practice dried
joints of meat from all portions of the animal, save the
head and feet, ar e tr ad ed down from pun a herd ing v ill ag es to
more temperate agricultural zones. The resulting over-
representation of podial and cranial elements in the refuse
of high altitude jerky production centers and the concomi-
tant over- representation of limb elements at low altitude
recipient sites might be termed the "charqui effectlt. (see
211
Figure 5-7).
It is entirely possible that the unusually high
r pre sen tat ion 0 f f 00 tel em en t sat Mar c a v all e (7 9 . 7 %), may
be partially a result of charqui production and trade from
this site in Early Horizon times. The site of at
3300 meters is located at less than the ideal altitude for
charqui manufacture, since it is the penetrating cold of
June and July nights on the puna that provides the perfect
conditions for this process. However: it frequently does
drop below freezing during June and July in Cuzco and these
temperatures combined with other unknown factors
5
may have
made the site of Marcavalle entirely adequate for the pro-
duction of charqui. While the faunal data cannot prove this
thesis, the over-abundant foot elements (especially proximal
phalanges) at Marcavalle certainly lend it corroborative
suppo rt .
On the other hand the complete charqui effect requires
a similar disproportionate representation of cranial ele-
ments, and these are relatively scarce at Marcavalle. If in
fact the charqui effect was in operation at this site, I
again can only offer severe fracture damage and high alti-
tude exposure as possible contributing factors in the reduc-
tion of cran ial el emen ts .
SigllS of the charqui effect may be even more evident at
212
Figure 5-7 Pictorial representation of the cbarqui effect --
an explanatory model of camelid bone differential representation.
t.', __, ..
213
low altitude sites and/or sites far removed from the camelid
centers of the southern highlands. Such a site is Kotosh
located in the upper Huallaga valley at an altitude of some
2000 meters. As mentioned previously, the camelid remains
reported by Elizabeth Wing from this site show a predomi-
nance of upper limb bones over foot bones. Rather than, or
perhaps in addition to, the "anti-schlepp" and tool manufac-
ture explanations proposed by Wing, this over-abundance of
leg bones may have been caused by Kotosh's position as the
low altitude, agricultural partner in a vertical charqui
trading relationship.
The environmental setting of Kotosh certainly makes it
unlikely that a large population of camel ids would have been
resident in the immediate vecinity of the site. This is
especially true of the alpaca and size,
camelids identified by Wing. These species are noted for
their intolerance to low altitudes.
If, indeed, the charqui effect was operating at Kotosh,
the method of initial butchery may have been slightly dif-
ferent than at Marcavalle. At Marcavalle all foot bones,
including astragalus and calcaneum, are abundant. This fact
suggests that these bones were removed the
(a pattern not observed among contemporary native butchers
see Fig. 2-2). At Kotosh astragali and calcanea are also
abundant. This fact
butchery methods in the
is consistent with
southern highlands
214
con t em po r a r y
where these
bones, along with the fibula, are always retained with the
distal tibiae. Perhaps, the abundance of astragali and cal-
canea at Kotosh is due partially to having "ridden in" with
the long bones, and partially to other factors of density
and minimal fracture.
The possibility that Kotosh was participating in a
vertical trading. system as early as its preceramic Mito
period is, of course, tantalizing for the understanding of
prehistoric Andean economy. However, such a conclusion must
await further evidence from low altitude sites and/or a re-
examination of the original Kotosh data in light of this
suggestion.
Marcavalle versus Qhataq' asallacta Bone Treatment
Along with numerous consistencies in camelid utiliza-
tion that are evident in both the Cuzco Valley samples there
are an equal number of inconsist.encies which point to
differences of human behavior and site function at Marca-
valle and Qhataq'sallacta. These differences are multiple.
The evidence for them will be described with minimal comment
and interpretations reserved until last.
215
1) Age structure differences Although the details of
age structure among the Marcavalle and Qhataq'sallacta
camelids are beyond the scope of this dissertation, and will
be the topic of a separate paper, a short discussion of this
aspect of the Cuzco Valley faunal remains is necessary here
for reasons of its relevance to both inter-site behavioral
differences and intra-site differential representation.
Based on evidence of epiphyseal fusion it \Olas determined
that the average age at time of slaughter was much older for
the Qhataq' asallacta camel ids than for those from Marca-
valle. Whereas only 23% of the camelid long bones from
Qhataq'asallacta were observed to be unfused (i.e.
juvenile), 51% of these bones from Marcavalle were found in
the unfused state. It is estimated that 30% of the Marca-
valle camelids had died by 1 year of age whereas only 2% of
the Qhataq'asallacta animals had died by this age. Although
there may be a natural biological component included in
these differences, it is probable that these age structures
also reflect differences in husbandry practices between the
two cultures. The Incas of Qhataq'asallacta selected only
"mature
ll
animal::; that had outlived their cargo carrying or
wool bearing abilities, while the Marcavallenos selected
animals at a more tender age, perhaps for the quality of
their meat.
Whatever the reasons behind these differences in age
216
structure it is important to note how they may have affected
the differential representation of body parts at each site.
Lewis Binford and Jack Bertram, in a recent paper (1977),
have argued that the single most important factor influenc-
ing the survivorship of bones in an archaeological site is
differential density, and that the density of individual
elements increases in a non-allometric fashion with age.
The core of this argument is based on the differential
representation of sheep body parts from two modern Navajo
sites; a winter site in which a high percentage of lambs
were slaughtered, and a summer site represented mostly by
prime adt;lt sheep. In regard to differences between the
archaeological visibility at the two sites the authors say:
It is clear that there are more parts represented by
substantial numbers in this [summer] assemblage than
was the case for the winter site. The mean survivor-
ship estimate is 34.9%, as compared to 20.6% for the
winter. Similarly, the 'pattern of anatomical part fre-
quency is different. For instance, on the summer site,
the most common bone was the distal humerus; on the
winter site, the mandible was most common, and the
distal humerus was represented by only 32.6% of the
animals indicated by mandibles. In short, there is a
real structural difference between the recovered popu-
lation of bones from the two sites, as well as meaning-
ful differences in their overall survivorship (Binford
and Bertram, 1977: 100).
The authors then conclude (after the analysis of bone
density data from three sheep with known ages) that:
The only difference between the two samples was in the
age structure of the animals exposed to attrition
through dog destruction. This observation led to the
surmise that differences in the age of the animals
217
exposed to a constant agent of attrition could condi-
tion the pattern of survival noted among different ana-
tomical parts (Binford and Bertram, 1977: 105).
While this explanation may be justified for the Navajo
sheep data, it appears not to fit the data from Marcavalle
and Qhataq'asallacta. The age structures from these two
sites are certainly dissimilar, and one would expect as
well, using Binford and Bertram's age-related densification
model, that the mean survivorships and structural patterns
of body part survival would be dissimilar. However, the
mean survivorships from the two sites are quite similar
(Marcavalle = 23.4%, Qhataq'asallacta = 21.5%), and as can
be seen in Figure 5-3 and previous discussion, the patterns
of survivorship are very close (cf. Binford and Bertram,
Fig.3.8). I take this to mean that other factors besides
age-related bone densification are responsible for the dif-
ferent patterns of bone survival at the Cuzco sites, and
that many of these factors are cultural in origin.
2) Bone complex differences As a consequence of the
protracted description of the schlepp-effect and the con-
trasts between limb and foot representation, discussion of
the iepresentation of axial elements has been neglected.
The survival of vertebral fragments provides one of the most
dram atic contrasts between the Marcavalle and
218
Qhataq'asallacta assemblages. As presented in
,.,.. .... \...,.-. ., '7
IdU.J..1:: I I
survival rate of vertebral fragments is 42.1% at Marcavalle
(the highest of any bone group) , and 12.8% at
Qhataq'asallacta. Due to the difficulty of identifying
small fragments, the Marcavalle count might be somewhat
inflated because of the erroneous inclusion of a number of
cervid vertebral fragments among the camelid vertebra. But
it is very doubtful that this error factor could account for
a three-fold difference between the two sites. It is more
likely that these frequency differences reflect real differ-
ences in meat/bone usage between the sites, and that for
some reason, fewer vertebral el emen ts arr iv ed at
Qhataq'asallacta. Further examination of Table 11 will also
show that these differences also are reflected by the fact
that only appendicular elements have survived with any regu-
larity at Qhataq'asallacata, and the individual survival
rates of the three appendicular bone complexes is remarkedly
similar (23.1%, 20.5%, 28.5%).
3) Fracture pattern differences It was emphasized in the
previous section or. intra-site variability that the spongy
articulations of the proximal humerus, proximal femur,
distal femur and proximal tibia were fractured longtitudi-
nally with consistently higher frequency at both Marcavalle
and Qhataq'asallacta than were the elements from any other
\
\
219
bone group. However, a point that was not mentioned is
longitudinal fracturing in general is less frequent
Qhataq' asallacta. The difference between the two sites -is
particularlyy in regard to the marrow-rich artieula-
tions. 56.4% of these bones were fractured longitudinally
at Marcavalle and only 36.5% received .similar treatment at
The reduced on this practice,
which was observed to be a function of soup/ stew product.ion
among contemporary herders, may indicate that.
Qhataq'asallacta was not exclusively a site, and
that it possessed specialized function.
The evidence for specialization is also corroborated by
the fact that fifteen complete unfractured long bones were
found at Qhataq'asallacta (1 humerus, 2 5
metacarpals, 1 femur and 6 metatarsals). This is an extreme
rarity for an archaeological assemblage and suggests that
factors other than normal disposal may have
been responsible for the depo si tion of bones at
Qhataq'asallacta.
4) Bone burning differences In no area is the difference
.betwee.n the treatment of bone at Marcavalle and
more salient than in the frequency with
which bone at these two sites wa.s found to be burned. 31.81
of all. camelid bone from Marcavalle was observed to be at
220
least partially burned, while only 4.3% of the camelid bone
f r o ~ Qhataq'asallacta showed evidence of burning (see Fig-
ure 5-8). Cervid bones from Marcavalle show a similar high
incidence of burning -- 31.7%.
Approximately 60% of the burned bone at Marcavalle is
of the jet black or calcined variety, indicating prolonged
exposure to intense heat. As suggested in Chapter 3, this
type of burning is probably not produced by cooking prac-
tices. It is more likely that it is the result of post-
consumption disposal in hearths where bones, already
stripped of their meat, are expused to hot coals, perhaps
during several separate firings. If this is true, much of
the Marcavalle bone may have been deposited in a similar
fashion to the modern bone from Tuqsaj i.e. as part of ashy
fireplace refuse.
The relative lack of burning at Qhataq'asallacta, on
the other hand, provides yet another piece of evidence for a
specialized, non-habitation function for this site.
5) Maximum dimension of fracture differences Prelim-
inary examination of the Cuzco Valley bones in 1974 gave me
the impression that the Qhataq'asallacta bones were not as
badly fractured as were the Marcavalle bones. In an effort
to quantify this impression and to better understand the
Innominates
Pr. Femora
Ds. Femora
Patellae
Pro Tibiae
Ds. Tibiae
Calcanea
Astragali
Tarsals
Pro Metatarsals
Ds. Metapodials
3 Phalanges
2
0
Phalanges
1
0
Phalanges
Pro Metacarpals
Carpals
un
Bll
o
o

Ds.
I
Pro Radius-UInce
Ds. Humeri
Pro HU1":Jeri if
\ I Scapulae
,
, '
........ -_ ... '
,
o
0\
(
o
co
I
o
r-.
,
o
..c
I
c
U'"l
I
0/0 BURNED
o
1
o
C"'"l
I
o
N
I
,
221
c
T
/
I
/
,
I
........
........
/
/
i
\

f
/
.1..... .........
'<
'\
I
I
I
,
\
I
{
\
\
/
/
\
)
(
\
c
t"O
.u
U
t"O
......
......
t"O
CI)
t"O
0""
t"O
.u
t"O
;r.
OJ
C
o
..0
222
relative degree of bone cominution between sites, the max-
imum dimension in millimeters of each specimen was measured.
For complete bones, liKe phalanges and astragali, this was
the maximum anatomical dimension, while for fractured long
bones it was usally the distance from some portion of its
articular surface down the shaft to its broken end. As
illustrated in Figure 5-9 these measurements confirmed my
first impression. With only two exceptions the means of the
maximum dimensions of all Qhataq'asallacta long bone frag-
ments (including metapodials in this case) proved to be
larger than the corresponding means from Marcavalle. While
this increase was observed to be as much as 40%, the mean
increase in size of all bone fragments from Marcavalle to
Qhataq' asallacta was 1 5 . 3 ~ . These differences in maximum
dimension were shown to be statistically significant by
means of the student's t-test (p=0.001--0.01).
The lack of severe fracturing at Qhataq'asallacta is
particulary evident among the limb bones from one excavation
unit, structure 03 (see Fig. 4-6). The limb bones from this
unit are remarkedly unfractured. The means of their maximum
dimensions average 35.9% longer than limb bones from Marca-
valle. In all cases the means of the maximum dimensions of
individual bone elements from structure 03 were larger than
the corresponding means from Marcavalle, and only in the
cases of the proximal metacarpal and metatarsal were these
70 =4
60
+
50

e' 40
o
30
m
:xl
m 20
Z
o
rn 10
\: 7'
10
All frlJgmentll
Structure 03 only
t;

t:J
:.r
1-1
(II (f)
S
.
0
'-3 '-'j 7J
'>:I 1=1
1-"
I.J,
C1> C1> rJ.
a' a' S S :::1
1-" 1-" 0 0 III
(\I III 'i 'i rt-
eD CD
Il' IU IU
III
'
l
. '\
./
( ",,-'
'-- j
70
"
t
60
I \
+
I \ 50
/ \
I \ 1\ 1-40
I \ 1\
\ I \
t- 30
\ / \
\ I \
\ I \
t-20
\ /
\ I '
t-1O
'y
0
10
20

Figure 5-9 Maximum dimension of fragments comparisons between Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta.
Comparisons expressed as percentage of difference (+ or -) between the means of
Qhataq'asallacta's maximum dimensions and the means of their Marcavalle counterparts.
I\)
I\)
LV
224
means slightly smaller than the means from Qhataq'asallacta
taken as a whole (see Fig. 5-9).,
Cultural Differences Between Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta
The gestalt that emerges from the sum of these data is
that the treatment of camelid bone at Marcavalle during the
Early Horizon was quite distinct from its treatment during
Inca times at Qhataq'asallacta. My belief is that these
distinctions are related in part to general cultural dif-
fernces between the early pastoralist/agriculturalist inha-
bitants of the Valley of Cuzco in 1000 B.C. and its occu-
pants under the Inca state in the 15th and 16th centuries
A.D. They also may be related in part to differences in
si te function.
The qualitative attributes of the Marcavalle faunal
assemblage all point toward a normal habitation function for
that site. The treatment of bone here reflects a cultural
pattern reminiscent of that observed in small, modern Andean
communities, such as Tuqsa and Huaycho. Bone is fractured
in a manner designed to provide the most convenient packages
for the cook and the consumer, and to extract the maximum
amount of nutrition. A high percentage of bone is burned,
as if after chewing off the meat the Marcavaleno diners
225
would often toss the bones into the fireplace, later to be
discarded along with the ashes. As is the modern practice,
all parts of the camelid carcass appear to have been util-
ized, for all parts have at least a respectable archaeologi-
cal visibility. It is possible that the specialized func-
tion of charqui manufacture may have contributed to the
unusually high proportion of foot bones and emphasis on
young tender animals. But if this is so, it seems to have
been an ancillary activity to a normal village in which peo-
ple lived and ate and threw out their garbage.
Qhataq'asallacta, on the other hand, does not fit this
image on a number of counts. Bones are not fractured in a
manner consistent with a frugal Andean meat consummer. The
fragments are both unusually large, in terms of maximum
dimension, and show a decreased emphasis on the longitud inal
splitting of articular ends. The Incas of Qhataq'asallacta
evidently were not as interested in extracting marrow from
bones or in producing chunks of meat convenient for the fam-
ily stew pot as were their Early Horizon ancestors or their
20th century descendants. Bones are rarely burned at
Qhataq'asallacta. They did not filter through the fireplace
as they did at Marcavalle. All parts of the carcass were
not consumed regularly at the Inca site. Both cranial and
vertebral elements are relatively infrequent here. The
emphasis was on the appendicular bones of the legs and feet.
226
Finally, the Qhataq'asallacata bones came from relatively
old animals, ones probably selected not because they pro-
vided prime cuts of meat, but because they had outlived
their other functions.
I suspect that only the age structure factor was normal
for most Inca sites. One would expect that in the tightly
organized Inca state the slaughter and consumption of llamas
and alpacas normally would be reserved for those animals
that had already served out their tours of duty in the wool
producing or carrgo carying herds. Normally, it would be a
waste of resources to slaughter a young animal for just its
meat. Although there is no specific mention of this matter
of old versus young meat, the chronicles do refer to the
existence of mature herds composed Qf camel ids called
aporucos (Cobo, 1964:209); Tschudi, 1969:122). The
Qhataq'asallacta bones may have come largely from aporucos.
In contrast, the relative lack of burning and fracture,
and the emphasis on appendicular bones, impresses me as spe-
cialized, rather than standardized Inca attributes. It is
aparent that a large proportion of the Qhataq'asallacta
bones did not pass through the same taphonomic consumption
filters as those from Marcavalle. If we posit, for the
moment, that the majority of these bones were not deposited
at the site as normal food refuse, then what other tapho-
nomic pathways might lie
possible pathways occur
227
behind their deposition? Three
to me. None alone fits all the
known facts about Qhataq'asallacta. But bearing in mind that
we are dealing in speculation, elements of all three may
comprise the explanation for these
1) The bones found at Qhataq'asallacta could be the
product of consumption, but consumption of a rather special-
ized sort. The high degree of bone fracturing observed at
Tuqsa and Huaycho (and presumably Marcavalle) is the product
of preparation for family consumption and for cooking in
family-size pots. Cooking on a more institutional scale
would not necessarily be subjected to the same constraints.
Pots could be larger and, therefore, joints of meat could be
larger. Is it possible that Qhataq'asallacta served such an
institutional or communal function? I leave you to consider
the image of Qhataq'asallacta as an Inca army garrison with
a common mess and army-size meat rations.
2) Previous to its excavation in
1972-73
Qhataq'asallacta was commonly thought to have been an Inca
storage
Despite
center (John
the ceramic
H. Rowe,
evidence
personal communication).
for habitation unearthed by
Gonzales and Arnold, the site still may have functioned in
part as a storage center. If this was true, it is not
inconceivable that one of the stored items was dried meat,
228
charqui. During the modern production of charqui meat/bone
packages are not fractured as in consumption fracturing.
The carcass is dismembered, but bones are left largely
intact for drying. Not until they are utilized later in
soup/stew or other dishes are the initial dried meat/bone
packages fractured into convenient chunks. If this, or a
practice in which long bones were merely halved, was in
effect for Inca char qui manufacture, the large number of
minimally fractured and complete bones at Qhataq'asallacta
may represent charqui joints stored for later use in Cuzco
or for shipment to the provinces. Structure 03 in particu-
lar may represent such a charqui warehouse. Some of the
meat stored in these warehouses may have spoiled and never
have been consumed at all.
This explanation, of course, does not fit the large
number of foot bones nor the scarcity of vertebra at
Qhataq'asallacta. To explain this anomaly we must examine a
third possible pathway.
3) It will be remembered from Chapter 3
manufacture of bone tools is a relatively
activity in the southern highlands of Peru today.
not the case, however, during the Late Horizon.
that the
unimportant
This was
The Incas
made a wide variety of functional and decorative items from
bone. Museum collections demonstrate that these ranged from
229
weaving instruments to cross-beam balances to hair combs to
pendants. As far as can be determined, the great majority
of these items were manufactured from the shafts of long
bones.
We would expect a site that possessed such a craft spe-
cialization to show a disproportionate number of appendicu-
lar bones useful in tool manufacture, to show a large number
of minimally altered bones that would have been used as tool
blanks, to show a high proportion of worked bone discards,
and generally to show a pattern anomalous to a post-
consumption assemblage. Qhataq'asallacta satisfies nearly
all of these expectations.
The relative scarcity of head parts and vertebra may
indicate their lack of utility in tool manufacturing. Con-
versely, the abundance of appendicular elements may reflect
desirability of these bones for tool manufacture. Metapo-
dial fragments are especially frequent at Qhataq'asallacta
(survival percentage -- proximal metacarpal = 33.7%; proxi-
mal metatarsal = 29.2%; distal metapodials = 49.7%). This
may reflect the fact that these elements have long, straight
shafts which are very useful as tool blanks. The man ufac-
ture of flat and straight tool blanks, or perhaps awls, may
explain why proximal metacarpals and proximal metatarsals
are the only bones from structure 03 that have mean maximum
.
230
dimensions the 1 evel of Qhataq' asallacta as a whole
(see fig. 5-9 ). These proximal metapodials may represent a
concentration of blanks from that structure.
In contrast to thts relatively high degree of fragmen-
tation: eleven of the fifteen complete bones found at
Qhataq'asallacta were metapodials. In this regard, one may
recall the discussion of wichuf'ia manufacture and trade in
Chapter 3. Similar weaving implements are known from Inca
collections, although the archaeological specimens show that
the distal condyles were used as the handle rather than the
use of the proximal end.
The only aspect of this tool manufacture model which
does not fit the Qhataq'asallacta data is the matter of
numbers of bone tool discards. Only 58 (0.79%) of the total
of bones at Qhataq'asallacta could be classed as
definite tools, or as possibly worked. The proportion of
worked bone is actually higher at Marcavalle, where no such
model appeared appropriate.
My ab il i ty to interpret this discrepancy is hampered b-Y'
the fact that this feature of the data only became apparent
to me after returning to the United States and I was unable
to double check the bones. My lack of knowledge concerning
other aspects of the excavation is also a disadvantage. It
may be that obvious bone artifacts were stored separately
231
from the un-modified faunal remains and that the percentage
of modified bone would be increased to a respectable level
by their addition. Likewise, it may be possible that an
activity area devoted to bone tool manufacture lies unexca-
vated at Qhataq'asallacta,6 and that the excavated remains
represent merely the castaways from the fringes of the
activity center.
Ultimately, a final interpretation concerning the char-
acter of the Qhataq'asallacta assemblage can be made only
after we posses a much more complete set "i: well-documented
faunal samples from the Andes. The stud y 0 f faunal attri-
butes such as differential representation, fracture pat-
terns, burning and activityy area concentrations requires
careful excavation and patient analysis. However, the
results, in terms of knowledge of human behavior, are well
worth the effort and until such time as we have such a store
of comparative data our interpretations can be little more
than speculations.
Chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
Numerous zooarchaeological investigations in the Old
World and North America have demonstrated that studies of
differential representation of body parts and studies of
other qualitative features of archaeological bone can pro-
vide a revealing window into ancient human behavior. The
success of studies in these areas suggests the overlooked
potential of similar research in regard to the Andean
camelids. Enthusiasm concerning this possibility must be
tempered, however, by the knowledge that recent paleontolog-
ical studies in the field of taphonomy indicate that fossil
bone assemblages are most often the result of a multitude of
biological and physical forces, and, by extension, that
archaeological models that attribute bone survival to unil-
ineal causes are probably over-simplified Thus, it is more
appropriate and in accordance with taphonomic theory to view
the progression of bone from the living animal to the
analysis table as a pathway and the factors which could
affect the destruction or survival of a particular bone as
filters or obstacles along this path.
An intuitive model of the general taphonomic pathway
and factors (filters) is presented in Figure 1-2 (p.17).
This model was conceived prior to entering the
provided an outline of testable hypotheses.
233
field and
One of the
primary goals of the fieldwork was an attempt to flesh out
this outline by observation of bone treatment among Andean
pastoralists and to test the derived ethnographic model
against archaeological data from the same geographic area.
Fieldwork took place in three communities of alpaca and
llama herders in the southern highlands of Peru (Tuqsa,
Huaycho and La Raya) and consisted of observation, inter-
view, controlled consumption experiments and experimentation
on bone density. Although it leaves no direct imprint in
the the archaeological record, one of the slaughter methods -
employed by modern Andean butchers is quite unusual and
demonstrates an important cultural link with the ethnohis-
torical past. This method is called ch'illa in modern
Quechua and involves killing the animal
abdominal incision and a manual breaking of
by means 0 f an
the ascend ing
aorta where it leaves the heart. For a number of reasons,
including a 16th or 17th century description and illustra-
tion by F e l ~ p e Guaman Poma de Ayala, the ch'illa appears to
be an indigenous technique of camelid slaughter dating at
least to the Inca period and is probably a unique Andean
invention. The importance of the ch'illa to the archaeolo-
gist is that its continuity through a minimum of six centu-
ries of Andean culture history suggests that other camelid
234
husbandry practices also may have been little changed by
Spanish influence, and, therefore, that ethnoarchaeological
research in this area can expect a greater degree of relia-
bility than in other areas lacking this documented con-
tinuity.
tend
In regard to
to treat
butchery, contemporary alpaca butchers
bone rather gently during the initial
dismemberment phase. In contrast, the production of con-
sumption units prior to cooking is quite destructive to
bone. This statement is particularly true of the less dense
articular surfaces of the proximal humerus, proximal femur,
distal femur and proximal tibia vlhich are always split long-
itudinally in order to expose their marrow-rich contents in
soups-stews. It is interesting that these four elements are
also the least dense bones of the appendicular skeleton, a
fact which would increase their vulnerability to taphonomic
stress. These observations suggest that the archaeological
consequence of the observed ethnographic and density situa-
tions would be a much reduced rate of survival for spongy
long bone fragments as compared to denser elements in the
camelid skeleton.
In addition to butchery and consumption factors there
are a number of other cultural factors contributing to the
character of bone assemblages in modern Andean communities.
235
These and the previously mentioned aspects of butchery are
described in Chapter 3 as factors of cultural taphonomy, but
in a wider theoretical context they may be viewed as
specific zooarchaeological influences within the realm of
what Michael Schiffer calls cultural site formation
processes, or c-transforms (Schiffer, 1977). These tapho-
nomic factors or processes include such phenomena as the
production of bone tools, the use of bones in children's
games and toys, the role of scavengers on bone survival, the
effects of bone burning, the special treatment of the bones
form ceremonially sacrificed camel ids, the influence of
individual styles of housekeeping and/or trash disposal and
the role of dried meat (charqui) trading from high altitude
pastoral zones to low altitude zones. All the
processes observed in the field operate within the dynamic
cultural system (S-S processes in the obscure language of
Schiffer) and affect the formation of the archaeological
record by means of destruction, alteration and redistribu-
tion of bone materials. A diagramatic summary of these fac-
tors and the taphonomic pathway in which they are involved
is presented in Figure 3-3, p.102.
The overall impression gained from the ethnographic
fieldwork is that, although all the factors seen in Figure
3-3 could contribute to the formation of Andean archaeologi-
cal sites, two factors seem to exert greater influence on
236
the differing character of Andean faunal assemblages than
all the rest. These two factors, differential bone destruc-
tion due to marrow extraction and differential bone distri-
bution due to charqui trade, appear to posses the potential
for significantly altering the frequencies of camelid skele-
tal elements found in archaeological sites. The effect of
marrowing is quite straightforward and its archaeological
consequence (reducing the archaeological visibility of
marrow-rich articular ends) has been mentioned above. The
effect of charqui trade is equally simple -- prime char qui
cuts (legs, vertebrae, ribs) are traded away from the pro-
duction site, producing an archaeological
reCipient area heavily weighted toward trunk
sample in the
and leg ele-
ments and a sample in the production zone skewed toward head
and foot elements (see Figure 5-7, p.212).
The analysis of three faunal samples from the Valley of
Cuzco provides a test of the hypothesis that these tapho-
nomic factors were operating during the prehistoric past and
can be detected archaeologically. Unfortunately, however,
the central topic of camelid differential representation is
dependent upon a number of methodological issues which,
though unanticipated in the original research outline, serve
to uncover s e v ~ r a l inconsistencies in previous zooarchaeo-
logical methods and have the positive effect of inducing
more precise thinking in their regard. One such issue
237
involves the calculation of minimt..'Ill numbers of individuals
for the camelids and other secondary species. Most reported
attempts to employ this method of estimating species abun-
dance have failed to state explicit criteria for MNI calcu-
lations. One problem involves the use of biometric compari-
sons between rights and lefts of the same element in order
to demonstrate non-matches and hence to increase the minimum
number of individuals. This procedure has been discussed by
Chapl in (1971) but the probl em 0 f b il ateral v ar iation
between right and left elements of the same animal has never
been addressed. Until a thorough zoological investigation
into the phenomenon of bilateral variation is conducted, the
application of biometric comparisons to the calculation of
MNIs should be considered to have questionable validity.
Another problem inherent in MNI calculations is the
definition of intra-site refuse disposal spheres within
~ l h i c h various elements from an individual animal might be
found. MNI numbers are estimates at best, but their inaccu-
racy is only compounded by ignoring the problem of possible
mixing of bones from different cultural periods or
butchery/consumption areas.
Numerous authors have commented on the necessity of
converting MNI estimates to weights of usable meat for indi-
vidual species. Attempts to do this with the Andean fauna
238
is complicated by the fact that, although the four species
of camelids yield different quantities of meat, they are not
easily distinguished on osteological grounds. In analyzing
the camelid bones from the Cuzco Valley sites biometric
techniques were utilized in order to "identify" the species
involved. The measurement of a large sample (n=71) of com-
parative camelid skeletons from La Raya and elsewhere per-
mitted refinement of techniques pioneered by Elizabeth Wing.
These techniques are based on a size gradient among the
camelid species and allow the osteometric discrimination of
three groups of Andean camelids (alpacas + vicunas, llamas
and guanacos). These discrimination techniques were util-
ized to "identify" a sample of unknown camelid bones from
Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta and to demonstrate that Mar-
cavalle was reliant on la!'ge camelids than was
Inca Qhataq'asallacta where alpacas appear to have formed a
significant portion of the population. By combining the
resulting percentages of large and small camelids at Marca-
valle and Qhataq'asallacta with the previously derived MNI
information an estimate of weight of usable meat from each
camelid can be made. Although somewhat more complicated
than previously reported methods of estimating the relative
abundance of Andean species, the weight of usable meat
method is essential in this culture area where food animals
range in size from the 115 kg. guanaco to the 1 kg. cuy.
239
These methodological considerations, although important
in their otm right, are secondary to the central focus of
the study of archaeological differential representation of
c3melid body parts in light of ethnoarchaeological observa-
tions. Differential representation at Marcavalle and
Qhataq'asallacta was calculated using a new method designed
to compensate for the longitudinal fracturing of long bone
articulations so common in Andean sites. In summary, this
method involves the calculation of probable numbers of
recognizable fragments (PNRF) for each skeletal element, the
calculation of expected numbers of fragments (ONF) and
finally the calculation of the percentage of fragments which
survive the taphonomic journey. This method represents
accurately the survival of individual skeletal elements
regardless of the degree of longitudinal fracturing at the
site, and, therefore allows more valid inter-site compari-
sons of bone survival than other methods now in use.
Details of the procedure of this method are discussed in
Chapter 5.
While a number of interesting points emerge from
analysis of the Cuzco differential representation and other
qualitative bone data the major tendencies can be subsumed
under the general categories: 1) tendencies which appear to
be the same at both Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta and may
be reflections of a general Andean cultural pattern, and 2)
240
tendencies which differ between the two sites and probably
reflect differences in site function.
1) In support of the relevance of ethnoarchaeological
analogy and the direct historical approach the data demon-
strate a strong correlation between ancient bone fracture
patterns and their modern counterparts. The fracture pat-
tern of bones observed in the Cuzco Valley assemblages
easily could have been produced by the contemporary butchers
of communities like Tuqsa. Ynis correlation is especially
evident in relatively unacculurated communities, where a
high degree of cultural continuity is inferred, and less so
in areas of major Hispanic influence.
With regard to differential representation, the most
salient feature of both the Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta
bone assemblages is the predominance of foot bones over leg
bones. This phenomenon also has been observed in the Old
World among large ungulates such as bison and has been
explained as the result of the "schlepp effect." For a
variety of reasons, the most important of which deal with
the smaller body size of the South American camelids, this
explanatory model is inappropriate to the Andean situation.
The high survival rate of camelid podial e l a ~ e n t s is
entirely consistent with practices observed in Tuqsa and
Huaycho and ethnoarchaeological hypotheses generated from
241
the study of bone treatment in these communities.
The principal causative factors behind the preponder-
ance of camelid foot bones at Marcavalle and
Qhataq'asallacta seem to be: a) differential damage to long
bones as a result of marrow extraction and hence their
reduced archaeological visibility, and b) the charqui effect
which would tend to have redistributed leg bones away from
these high altitude sites (see Figure 5-7). This explana-
tion is corroborated by the documented over-representation
of leg bones at Kotosh (Wing, 1972), a low altitude site
most likely receiving charqui cuts from the puna zone.
2) Despite the similarity of foot versus leg frequen-
cies at Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta there are clear
indications from the bone samples that the two sites were
formed in distinct manners. Both the fracture and burning
patterns observed at Marcavalle indicate that the faunal
assemblage was formed through the normal discard of food
refuse at a habitation site, probably in a midden. Judging
by the frequency and degree of burning, as well as compari-
sons with the Tuqsa ethnoarchaeological sample, it appears
that much of the bone may have passed through the fire
hearth.
In contrast, fracture pattern; maximum dimension of
fracture, epiphyseal fusion data and burning evidence at
242
Qhataq'asallacta suggest that the faunal assemblage at this
Inca site is not the product of normal occupational refuse,
but rather the result of a set of more specialized ancient
behaviors. However, no single explanatory model appears to
fit all the features of the Qhataq'asallaota
hence a combination of three behavioral patterns seems indi-
cated. These ancient behaviors may have included:
a) the use of Qhataq'asallacta as a storage center
which included facilities for the storage of charqui. Aban-
doned or spoiled charqui cuts would explain the
infrequent burning and relatively low degree of cominution
of Qhataq'asallacta bones.
b) the possible presence at Qhataq'asallacta of commu-
nal cooking facilities as may have existed to support the
Inca army. The bone treatment behavior implicit in such
facilities would account partially for the large maximum
dimension of fracture statistics at the site and the dis-
similarity of t.he fracture pattern to that of known consump-
tion assemblages.
c)the use of at least a portion of Qhataq'asallacta as
a workshop for the production of bone tools. Such bone work-
ing would tend to explain the large number of minimally
fractured bones as well as the large proportion of metapodi-
also These bones could have been intended as tool blanks
243
but never utilized. Tool manufacture also would explain the
relative scarcity of head and vertebral parts at the site.
These bones would not be as desirable for tool production as
long, straight limb bones and metapodials.
Recommendations for Future Research
In general the results of this study must be viewed as
encouraging. For the first time the use of ethnoarchaeolog-
ical investigations has been demonstrated as an important
tool for the generation of explanatory hypotheses and the
elucidation of processes of site formation in the Andes.
Ethnoarchaeological analogs derived from modern Andean herd-
ing communities appear to be especially useful due to the
evidence for strong cultural continuity between modern puna
residents and their ethnohistoric (and perhaps prehistoric)
counterparts.
In addition, it is clear that the role of archaeologi-
cal bones from Andean sites need not continue to be limited
to that of "ecofacts", mere indicators of ancient environ-
ment and diet, but rather should be regarded as "natural
monuments", accurate reflectors of intricate patterns of
past human activity. The bone data from Marcavalle and
Qhataq'asallacta, in light of ethnoarchaeological analogy,
are certainly tantalizing. This is especially true in regard
244
to differential representation frequencies and their pro-
posed explanation in the charqui effect.
Finally, this study has resulted in a basic outline of
the Andean taphonomy system in which a series of taphonomic
filters or processes are detailed. This outline should be
an aid to all Andean archaeologists as a first step in
understanding site formation in this culture area.
However, it would be completely unjustified at this
point to suggest that this study does more than uncover the
potential for ethnoarchaeological investigations and for the
detailed analysis of qualitative features of Andean faunal
samples. In the view of the author, the principal utility
of this study and the fieldwork that preceded it is as a
suggestion, a hint of future work to be done. The next step
should be to attempt to place these ethnoarchaeological
observations within the context of a thorough study of
Andean site formation and the formulation of explicit propo-
sitions governing both natural and cultural site formation
processes in this extremely variable environment. Without
such explicit propositions the cultural patterning of faunal
remains discussed here will continue to tease the archaeolo-
gist, while always witholding the degree of confidence which
this valuable subject matter deserves.
ENDNOTES
Chapter 1
[1J The lOhg, open-rooted incisors of this species are sig-
nificantly different from the shorter, closed-rooted
situation among the other three species. In addition,
the vicuna tends to have enamel on only the labial sur-
face of the incisors, while the others p ~ e s e n t this
feature on both the lingual and labial surfaces. These
dental differences have played an important role
assignment of the vicuna to a separate genus in most
classificatory schemes.
These criteria are not infallible, however, and I
have examined a number of alpaca skulls with incisors
that could easily be confused with those of a vicuna.
[2J The provenience of the vicunas was not originally La
Raya. The carcasses of three adult animals were
obtained from Cala Cala, a former hacienda northeast of
Puno specializing in vicuna breeding and now admin-
istered by the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture. For a
number of years the former owner of Cala Cala was
engaged in breeding vicunas with alpacas. Recently,
consciencious attempts to eliminate alpaca genes from
[3]
246
the herd have been made, but alpaca characteristics
continue to surface in some individuals. The three
animals which I received from Cala Cala had been evis-
cerated and dried, so I was unable to observe their
outward physical characteristics. However, I was
assured by the administrator of Cala Cala that the
animals were phenotypically vicuna and had no alpaca
features.
The other vicu!"!a: a juvenile, carne from an
hacienda near Cuzco.
stock.
It was of unequivocally pure
The faunal remains recovered
presently on loan to
in thi s ex c av ation
the Laboratorio
is
de
Paleoetnozoologfa, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marco s in Lim a.
Chapter 2
[1] Henceforth I will follow the convention of underlining
Quechua words. Spanish words and phrases will be
inclosed in quotation marks.
247
[2J While interviewing camelid herders in the southern
sierra several were reluctant to admit any knowledge of
the dorsal stab method and/or made veiled, joking
references to some type of "sacrificio de noche"
(nighttime slaughter). However, they would provide no
details. The immediate and silent effect of the dorsal
stab, of course, would be ideal for rustlers working
the dead of night, especially in the furtive pakaylla
type of rustling (Orlove, 1973:70). In such a situa-
tion the ability to remove the animal noiselessly is of
paramount importance.
[3J I translate the text which appears above the drawing as
follows: Indians who kill a camelid. Butchers as in
the time of idolatry stick in the hand to the right of
the heart. One should not slaughter a camelid in this
manner, but rather, as in these Christian times, should
slit the throat of the camelid. For it is witchcraft
and idolatry to slaughter in the ancient manner, and
the Indians of this land that do it should be punished
(Guaman Poma, 1936: 880 [894J.
[4J Guaman Porna's illustration is slightly in error in
regard to the anatomy of the animal. Despite the fact
that the text states that "mete la mano al derecho del
corazon" (he sticks in his hand to the right of the
248
heart) the illustrated butcher has his hand in the left
side of the animal. Also his hand is directed away
from the heart in the direction of the abdominal cav-
ity. In addition the incision is much higher on the
side of the thorax than is the actual case.
The 19th century German traveller, Johann von
Tschudi, also mentions this method of camelid sacrifice
and asserts that "Sacrific ial llamas were sheared
because the long dense wool would have impeded the
knife (tumi) of stone or copper which made the cut on
the left side of the chest" (Tschudi, 1965:131).
[5J An exception to this statement is a reported Chumbivil-
cas marriage rite in which the groom must make a
ch'illa- like incision in a black lamb and pullout its
still beating heart. The number of palpitations are
then counted for the purpose of divination. This prac-
tice, however, is patently ritualistic and not the true
utilitarian ch'illa.
[6J The translation of this Spanish passage and others that
follow are my own.
[7J "Alquible" is probably a hispanization of "toward qib-
lah", the direction in which Muhammadans look when
praying (Hastings, 1926:30).
249
[8J Without comment a list of the practices I observed is
as follows: a) the ch'illa is sometimes accompanied by
the cermony of tinkay, toasting the local apus (moun-
tain spirits) with beer, wine or 40% alcohol. At other
times it is much more businesslike and no ceremony is
performed; b) the slaughtered animal is sometimes
covered with a poncho in order that the other members
of the herd do not become excited (Plate 9); c) an
offering of coca is sometimes made to the spirit of the
dead animal immediately followings its slaughter and
butchery (Plate 10); d) in Tuqsa it was claimed that
both Tuesday and Fridays were unlucky days for the
ch'illa.
[9J The side that is skinned first is dependent on both
handedness and style.
[10J On both etymological and historical grounds the origin
of yawarsalchi is probably hispanic. Salchicha is the
Spanish word for sausage. The only dietary use of
camelid blood noted in the chronicles was for yawar
sankhu, a kind of bread made from maize and camelid
blood. Yawar sankhu was received on ceremonial occa-
sions in a manner similar to the Eucharist and was
designed to symbolically unite the recipient and the
Inca.
250
[11] Considerable care is taken to maintain the rib heads
intact during this process. This is done so that the
individual vertebrae will not be difficult to separate
into portions of meat during the process of consump-
tion.
[12] These bones had been lying on the surface of the ground
for varying lengths of time, and consequently had lost
varying amounts of organic matter. This factor may
cloud the exactness of these determinations to some
degree. However, there is no reason to believe that
anyone element received differential exposure as com-
pared to any other element.
[13] The high specific gravities of the metapodial elements
may be due in part to the inclusion of a sUbstantial
part of the very dense shaft along with the epiphysis.
Shaft fragment specific gravities from the other long
bones ranged between 2.03 and 2.33.
[14] The data from these three sources are not completely
comparable. Information for some bone elements of the
wildebeeste and moose is missing or somewhat ambiguous.
The complete fusion of the radius and ulna in the
llama/alpaca differs from the situation in the wilde-
beeste and moose. Thus, radius-ulna in the wildebeeste
and moose columns should be read as only the radius.
251
Chapter 1
(1] The term ruk'i is more commonly used in the Cuzco area.
(2] The opposite end of the metapodials apparently is used
in the Cuzco area.
(3] This is a compromise term. It is most likely that the
Incas sacrificed both llamas and alpacas. It is clear
that only domesticated species were utilized for sacri-
fice (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII, Chap. XX, 201), however,
the chroniclers do not make a clear distinction between
them. The Spanish conquerors and later immigrants,
encountering a group of strange animals which bore some
vague resemblance to European sheep applied the terms
"carnero", "cordero'!, "oveja
1l
, and "ganado" to the
domesticated camel ids with no clear attempt to dif-
ferentiate between llamas and alpacas. Apparently both
Molina and Cobo were aware of the difference between
the two animals, but do not carry the distinction
through their descriptions of sacrifice. In his sec-
tion on natural history, Cobo defines two kinds of car-
nero: the "carnero raso" is a beast 0 f burd en and larg e
( = llama or Lama glama), the "carnero 1 anudo" or "paco"
is smaller and valued for its fine wool (= alpaca or
Lama pacos) (Cobo, 1964: Book IX, Chap. LVII, 366).
252
But unfortunately, Cobo neglects to use "raso" or
"lanudo" consistently in the rest of his text.
Molina lists a number of native categories of
camelids, in which both llamas and alpacas are men-
tioned, but most categories refer to color quality and
some may overlap the two taxonomic species.
Therefore, there is no foolproof way of distin-
guishing between llamas and alpacas in the chronicles,
and "camelid" should be read in this section as incor-
porating the possibility of either llama or alpaca.
[4] Kamay is Januz.t y according to Polo de Ondegardo and
December :.'. ;": to Mol ina. However, Polo's account
is earlier, to John Rowe, and represents a
better understanding of the Inca calendar. Kamay was
roughly equivalent to January in the Julian calendar,
but 10 days behind the Gregorian calendar which was
adopted in 1582. This lack of synchronization between
the two calendars and different times of authorship may
account for the confusion in terminology. (John H.
Rowe, personal communication).
[5] Molina is more specific in this instance. He calls the
first river "Capimayo or Guacapancomayo", which flows
down some ravines above Cuzco (Molina, 1943:64). These
names are probably equivalent to 9apimayo ( = river of
253
the shrine of zaphi in the Quebrada of Saphi (Cobo,
1956: Book XIII, Chap. XIII, 173) and to Guacapuncomayo
( = river of the shrine-doorway; a name given to the
entrance of the Quebrada de Saphi) (John H. Rowe, per-
sonal communication). These are obviously ancient
names for the Huatanay River which conforms to these
descriptions and joins the Tullumayo River about 1.5
kilometers below the plaza.
[6] This is a misspelling of Pumachupa (the puma's tail)
which is the section of the city formed by the conflu-
ence of the Huatanay and Tullumayo Rivers.
[7] This is the Spanish spelling of this word. The correct
Quechua spelling is "ch'arki".
Chapter 4
[1] This spelling of the site name, "Qhataq' asallacta", is
the one originally provided me by J o s ~ Gonzales. An
alternate spelling which is more orthographically con-
sistent with other Quechua spellings found in this
dissertation is "Qhata-q'asallaqta".
254
[2J Unfortunately this goal proved to be unreasonably
optimistic and in some cases more general categories
(eg. Large Mammal Indeterminate, Artiodactyl Indeter-
minate) had to be used.
[3J Only the identifiable bones were studied from this
site.
[4J In order to be consistent I have utilized White's esti-
mate of 50% of usable meat for the ungulates. Published
estimates of camelid usable meat yield, however, are
somewhat higher. Raedeke (1974:4) estimates a 53%
yield for guanacos, and Fernandez-Baca (1971:13) calcu-
lates a 60% yield for alpacas. Hence; 50% may be on the
conservative side.
[5J I have decided on 115 kilos as the average live weight
based on a compromise between the Tierra del Fuego
guanacos which Raedeke claims to be extremely large
(ave. 125 kilos) and the much smaller figure provided
by Gilmore (75-100 kilos) .
[6J Data taken from 8 adult llamas (2 males, 6 females) for
which I was able to record the weights in La Raya.
[7J The majority of the measurements which I took were the
same as those illustrated by Wing (1972:330), and those
which I include here are identical, although differing
255
in their letter designations.
[8] Although the comparative llama sample is not extremely
large it contains at least two individuals which
residents of La Raya claimed were some of the largest
llamas they had ever seen. Likewise the majority of the
comparative guanacos came from Tierra del Fuego where
they are reported to range ~ ~ high as 149 kilos.
[9J For purposes of calculating the weight of usable meat
it is sufficient to present the percentages of small
and large camelids. However, several intriguing prob-
lems which must be left for future research shGuld at
least be commented upon at this point. The rather
small percentage of small camel ids at Marcavalle is
substantiated independently by Elizabeth Wing's step-
wise discriminant analysis of 109 camelid bone measure-
ments taken on astragali, calcanea, distal humeri, and
distal tibiae from Karen Mohr-Chavez's 1966 exccavation
at the same site. On the basis of this sample Wing
judged 19.3% of the Marcavalle camelids to be from the
small category (after Wing, 1973). Although published
data are inadequate for definite conclusion, this low
frequency of small camel ids at Marcavalle may be typi-
cal of Early Horizon sites in the southern sierra north
of the Titicaca Basin, and may be related to a more
recent domestication of alpacas than llamas, and/or a
slower spread of alpacas into sub-puna environments. A
similar low frequency of small camelids (22.8%) is seen
at another Early Horizon site, Piki-kalli-pata, located
some 70 miles south of Cuzco at approximately the same
altitude and in the same type of environment as Marca-
valle (from Wing, 1973).
In contrast, almost 40% of the camelids from
Qhataq' asallacta are small and are most probably alpa-
cas (based on the expectation of a predominance of
domesticated camelids from a site located in the capi-
tal of the Inca Empire). That such a percentage of
small camel ids may be typical of Late Horizon sites is
sugg ested by (.ling's anal ys i s 0 f the camel id bones from
the Inca site of Tarma in the central highlands where
she calculated 48.2% (N=166) of the camelids to be from
the small category (after \oiling, 1973).
[10] Based on an averaging of alpaca and vicuna weights.
[11] Based on an averaging of taruka and white-tailed deer
weights.
[12] Alpaca weight -- based on the assumption that the great
majority of Qhataq' asallacata small camel ids are alpa-
cas.
257
[13J This category includes small bird, reptile, and amphi-
bian bones that could not be identified more specifi-
cally than class.
[14J This figure is a rough averaging of the weights of all
four camelids. This weight estimate is thus based
entirely on size.
[15J The breakdown of the camelids into 90% large and 10%
small is based on my interpretation of information pro-
vided by Wing (1972,1973). It is meant to bE only a
rough estimate.
[16J I have used here the figure of 36.5 kilos/individual
cervid based on an averaging of taruka and white-tailed
deer weights. However, if the smaller brocket deer is
really a significant part of the cervid sample from
Kotosh, the weight of usable meat/individual cervid
would be reduced further,thus altering the
cervid/camelid ratio again.
Chapter 5
{1J Although it is far beyond the province of this disser-
tation to discuss non-Andean faunas, it is interresting
to note that Binford's recent work with Alaskan ~ a r i b o u
indicates that their front quarters are acourate indi-
258
cators of poor nutrition, and that for this reason they
are less desirable after the rigors of winter (Binford
and Bertr am, 1977: 83 ) . Thus, Read's inter pr etation 0 f
reindeer differential representation may be complicated
by factors of seasonality.
[2J In this regard it seems even more unlikely that prehis-
toric hunters would have found it necessary to schlepp
small brocket deer. Thomas Lynch has recently sug-
gested that the abundance of brocket foot bones at Gui-
tarrero Cave in the northern Peruvian highlands can be
explained by the inhabitants having carried the meat
back to the home base in the hide with the feet still
attached (Lynch,1978:476)
[3J In the future, a possibly more objective method of
analyzing fracture pattern data would be to quantify
the length, orientation and angle of the fracture by
means of measurements.
[4J The total number of bones presented in this table is
less than in Tables 15 and 16 because fracture pattern
data was not recorded for some excavation units.
It has been suggested (Karen Mohr-Chavez, personal com-
munication) that Marcavalle's location on the shore of
the the Rfo Cachimayo (salt river) would make it an
259
ideal locale for char qui production, if the modern
method of using salt to dry the meat were followed.
However, there is no ethnohistorical evidence to indi-
cate that salt was used as a drying agent in ancient
times. B e r n a b ~ Cobo catalogues many other uses for
sal t (Cobo, 1964:Book III, Chap I
iT
. , 112-113) and
describes charqui manufacture during Inca times (Cobo,
1964:Book XII, Chap XXX, 126) but does not mention the
use of salt in the preparation of charqui. It seems
unlikely that such a useful technique would have been
utilized in Cuzco in the Early Horizon and then forgot-
ten by Inca times.
[6J The structure 03 bone data, although a provocative
indication of an activity area of some kind, cannot be
labelled conclusively as such until a thorough compari-
son can be made with the ceramic data. This evidence
is further clouded by the fact that I received nine of
the Qhataq'asallacta bone level bags with their pro-
venience tags missing. Some of these bags could have
corne from structure 03, and their contents might alter
the picture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acosta, J o s ~ de
Historia natural y moral de las Indias [1589J.
Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Tomo 73,
pp. 1-247. Madrid.
Arriaga, Pablo J o s ~ de
1910 Extirpacidn de la idolatra en el Peru
[1621J. Edicidn facsimilar de una copia de la
edicidn de 1621 encontrada en la Biblioteca
Nacional de Parfs por Enrique Pena. Buenos Aires.
Binford, Lewis R. and Bertram, Jack B.
1977 Bone frequencies--and attritional processes. In For
Theory Building in Archaeology, Lewis R. Binford,
ed., pp.77-153. Academic Press. New York.
Bonnichsen, Robson
1973 Some operational aspects of human and animal bone
alteration. In Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology:North
America. B. Miles Gilbert, ed., Missouri Archaeo-
logical Society, pp.9-24. Columbia.
Society, pp. 9-24. Columbia.
Behrensmeyer, A.K.
1975 The taphonomy and paleoecology of Plio-Pleistocene
vertebrate assemblages east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya.
Bulletin of Museum of Comparative Zoology, vol. 146,
no. 10, pp.473-578. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Brain,
1969
1967
C.K.
The contribution of Namib desert Hottentots to an
understanding of australopithecine bone accumula-
tions. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Re-
search Station, no.39. Pretoria, South Africa.
Hottentot food remains and their bearing on the
interpretation of fossil bone assemblages. Scienti-
fic Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station,
no. 32. Pretoria, SouthAfrica.
261
Bridges, E. Lucas
1948 uttermost part of the earth. Hodder and Stroughton.
London.
Casteel, Richard W.
1971 Differential bone destruction: some comments.
American Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 4, pp.466-469.
D.C.
Chaplin, Raymond E.
1971 The study of animal bones from archaeological sites.
Seminar Press. London.
Cieza de Ledn, Pedro de
1967 El senorio de los Incas (segunda parte de la Crdnica
del [1553J. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Lima.
1945 La crdnica del [1550]. Coleccidn Austral,
no. 507. Espasa-Calpe, S.A. Madrid.
Cobo,
1964 Historia del Nuevo Mundo [1653]. Biblioteca de
Autores Espanoles, Tomo 91, Tomo 92, pp. 1-275.
Madrid.
Cooper,
1949
John M.
Games and gambling. In Handbook of South American
Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 143, vol. V, pp.503-524. Wash-
ington, D.C.
Custred, Gl ynn
1974 Llameros y comercio interregional. In Reciprocidad e
Intercambio en los Andes Peruanos, Giorgio Alberti y
Enrique Mayer, eds., Instituto de Estudios Peruanos,
pp.252-289. Lima.
Daly, Patricia
1969 Approaches to faunal analysis in archaeology. Ameri-
can Antiquity, vol. 34, no. 2, pp.146-153. Washing-
ton, D. C.
262
Dart, Raymond A.
1957 The Makapansgat australopithecine osteodentokeratic
culture. Proceedings of the 3rd Pan African Congress
on Prehistory, 1955, pp.161-171. Livingston.
De Lumley,
1969 A Paleolithic camp at Nice. In Old World Archaeo-
logy: Foundations of Civilization. C.C. Lamberg-
Karlovsky, ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, pp.33-
42. San Francisco.
Diez de
1964
Dwyer,
1971
San Miguel, Garci
Visita hecha a la provincia de Chucuito por Garci
Diez de San Miguel en el ano 1567. Documentos region-
ales para la y Etnohistoria Andinas.
Torno 1. Ediciones de la Casa de la Cultura del Peru.
Lima.
Edward Bridgman
The early Inca occupation of the valley of Cuzco,
Peru. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthro-
pology, University of California, Berkeley.
Efremov, J.A.
1940 Taphonomy:New Branch of Paleontology. Pan-American
Geologist, vol.74, no.2, pp.81-93.
Fernandez Baca A., Saul
1971 La alpaca:reproduccidn y crianza. Instituto Veteri-
nario de Investigaciiones Tropicales y de la Altura,
de Divulgacidn, no. 7. Lima.
Flannery, Kent V.
1967 Vertebrate fauna and hunting patterns. In The Pre-
history of the Tehuacan Valley, vol.1, pp.132-177.
University of Texas Press. Austin.
Flores Ochoa, Jorge A.
1968 Los pastores de una introduccidn a su es-
tudio. Instituto Indigenista Interamericano. Mexico.
Frison,
1973
263
George C.
The Wardell buffalo trap 48 SU 301: commmunal pro-
curement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming.
Anthropological Papers, no. 48, Museum of Anthro-
pology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Gejvall, N.G.
1969 Lerna, a pre-classic site in the Argorlid,vol. 1.
American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Princeton.
Gilmore, Raymond
1947 The fauna and ethnozoology of South In
Handbook of South Indians, Smithsonian
Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
143, vol. VI, pp.345-463. Washington, D.C.
Gravson. Donald K.
1973 'On the methodology of faunal analysis. American Anti-
quity, vol. 38, no.4, pp. 432-439. Washington, D.C.
Guaman
1936
Gursky,
1970
Porna de Ayala, Felipe
Nueva cordnica y buen gobierno (codex
Travaux et de l'Institut
d'Ethnologie, XXIII. Paris.
M.
Diet and physical characteristics of Quechua Indians
from three Peruvian highland communities (Abstract).
kmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 33,
p. 131. Washington, D.C.
Hastings, James, ed.
1926 Encyclopaedia of Religion 2nd Ethics, Vclume 11.
Charles Scribner's Sons. New York.
Herre, Wolf
1952 Studien uber die wilden und domestizierten
Tylopoden Sadamerikas. Zoologischer Garten, Band 19,
Hefte 2-4, pp.20-98.
1953 Die Herkunft des Alpakka. Saugetierkundliche
Mitteilungen, Band 1, Heft 1, pp.176-177. Stuttgart.
264
Hershkovitz, P.
1968 The evolution of mammals on southern continents
VI. The recent mammals of the Neotropical Region:
a zoogeographical and ecological review. Quarterly
Review of Biology, vol.44, no.1, pp.1-70. Stoney-.
brook.
Higham, C.F.W.
1968 Faunal sampling and economic prehistory. Sonderdruck
aus Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde, Band 33,
Heft 5, pp. 291-305. Hamburg.
Hole, Frank, Flannery, Kent V. and Nealy, James A.
1969 Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran plain.
Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, no.1, Univer-
sity of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Klein, Richard G.
1975 The mammali3n fauna of the Klasies River Mouth sites,
Southern C ~ p ~ Province, South Africa. South African
Archaeologic3l Bulletin, vol. 31, nos. 123-124,
pp. 75-9S. Cape Town.
Koford, Carl B.
1957 The vicuna and the puna. Ecological Monographs,
Krantz,
1968
vol.27, pp.153-219. Durham.
Grover S.
A new method of counting mammal bones. American
Journal of Archaeology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp.286-288.
Baltimore.
Lawrence, Barbara
1973 Problems in the inter-site comparison of faunal
remains. In Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte
der Haustiere. Jamos Matolcsi, ed., pp.377-402.
Budapest.
Leakey, L.S.B.
1971 Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Einar
1918 Notes on Guanacos. Arkiv Zoologi, vol. 8,
no. 19, pp.1-8. Uppsala.
Lopez Aranguren, Dolores J.
1930 fdsiles argentinos. Anales de la
Sociedad Cient:i!fica de Argentina, vol. 109,
pp.15-35, 97-126. Buenos Aires.
Thomas F.
265
Lynch,
1978 The South American Paleo-Indians. In Ancient Native
Americans, Jesse D. Jennings, ed., pp.455-489.
w. H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.
Lyon, Patricia J.
1970 Differential bone destruction:an ethnographic
example. American AntiC!.uity: vol. 35
s
no. 2, pp.213-
215. Salt Lake City.
Mortla,
1946
Mart:l!n de
Los origenes de los Inkas [1590]. Los Pequenos
Grandes Libros de Historia Americana, serie I,
XI. Librer:i!a e Imprenta D. M. Miranda. Lima.
Murra, John V.
1972 El "control vertical" de un mdximo de pisos
ecoldgicos en la econom:i!a de las sociedades
tomo
andinas. In Visita de la Provincia de Leon de
Huanuco en 1562, tomo 2, pp. 427-476. Huanuco, Peru.
Nachtigall, Horst
1966a Indianische, Fisher, Feldbauer und Viehzuchter:
Beitrage zurperuanischen Volkerkunde. Marburger
Studien zur Volkerkunde, Band 2. Berlin.
1966b Of rend as de llamas en la vida ceremonial de los
pastores de la puna de Moquegua (Pertl) y de la puna
de Atacama (Argentina) y consideraciones historico-
culturales sobre la ganader:i!a ind:i!gena. Proceed-
ing ... .:.; of the 36th International Congress of American-
is t s, 1 964, p p. 1 93 -1 98. Se v ill a
266
Nie, Norman H., et ale
1970 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second
, Edition" McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.
Orlove C.,
1973 Abigeato. Allpanchis phuturinga. Organo del Institu-
to de Pastoral Andino, tomo V. Cuzco.
Palacios Felix
1977 " . Hiwasaha Uywa Uywatana, Uka Uywaha Hiwasuru
Uyusitu.":Los Pasotres Aymara de Chichillapi. M.A.
Thesis, Pontifica Universidad Catdlica del Per1.l.
Lima.
Payne, Sebastian
1972 On the interpretation of bone samples from archaeo-
logical sites. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, E.S.
Higgs, ed., Cambridge University Press, pp. 65-81.
Cambridge.
Perkins, Dexter, Jr. and Daly, Patricia
1968 A hunter's village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific
American, vol. 219, no. 5, pp. 96-106. New York.
Polo de
1916
Ondegardo, Juan
Los errores y svpersticiones de los indios, sacadas
del tratado y aueriguaci6n que hizo el Licenciadc
Polo [1585]. Colecc idn del ibros y documentos
referentes a la Historia del Per1.l, tomo III, pp.3-43.
Lima.
Raedeke, Kenneth
1975 El guanaco de M.agallanes, Chile. Su distribucidn y
Publicacidn Tecnica, no. 4, Corpora-
cidn Nacional Forestal. Santiago.
Read, Catherine E.
1971 Animal bones and human behavior. Ph.D. dissertation,
UCLA, University Microfilms. Ann Arbor.
R<5hr s, Man fred
1957 Okologische Beobachtungen an wildleben Tylopoden
Slldamerikas. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Zoolo-
""..
267
gischen Gesellschaft in Graz, Zoologischer Anzeiger,
Supplementband 21, pp.538-554. Leipzig.
Rowe, John H.
1946 Inca cultura at the Spanish conquest. In Handbook of
South American Indians, Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin 143, vol. 2,
Ope 183-330. Washington, D.C.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1977 Toward a unified science of the cultural past. In
Research Strategies in Historical Archeology,
Stanley South, ed., Academic Press, New York.
Schiffer, Michael B. and Rathje, William L.
1973 Efficient exploitation of the archeological record:
penetrating problems. In ReseCirch and Theory in Cur-
rent Archeology, Charles L. Redman, ed., John Wiley
and Sons, pp.169-179. New York.
pp.169-179. New York.
Shotwell, J.A.
1955 An approach to the paleoecology of mammals. Ecology,
vol. 36, pp. 327-337. Durham.
Simons, Dwig ht
ms. Faunal remains from Chile. Paper presented
at the 38th annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, May 3, 1973. San Francisco.
Simpson, George Gaylord, Roe, Anne and Lewontin, Richard C.
1960 Quantitative Zoology. Hartcourt, Brace and Company.
New York.
Steinbacher, G.
1953 Zur Abstammung des Alpakka - Lama pacos. Sauge-
tierkundliche Mittelungen, Band 1, Heft 2, PP.78-
79. Stuttgart.
Thomas,
1971 On distinguishing natural from cultural bone in
archaeological sites. American Antiquity, vol. 36,
no. 3, pp. 366-,71. Washington, D.C.
268
Thomas, R. Brooke
Human adaptation to a high andean energy flow system.
Occasional Papers in Anthropology, no.7, Pennsylvania
State University. Universtiy Park, Pennsylvania.
Tschopik, Harry
1946 The Aymara. In Handbook of South American Indians,
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethno-
logy, Bulletin 143, vol. 2, pp.501-573. Washington,
D.C.
Tshchudi, Johann Jakob von
1965 La llama (Auchenia lama Fisch): en relacidn con 1a
cultura del antiguo [1885J. Translation and
introduction by Glynn Custred, Mesa Redonda de Cien-
cias Prehistoricas y Antropologicas, vol.1, pp.120-
138. Pont:i!fica Universidad Catdlica del Pertl.
Lima.
Voorhies, M.
1969 Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Plio-
cene fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Contributions to
Geology, Special Paper #1, University of Wyoming
Press. Laramie.
Walker, Ernest P.
1974 Mammals of the world, 3rd edition. The John Hopkins
University Press. Baltimore.
Webb, S. David
1974 Pleistocene llamas in Florida, with a brief review
of the Lamini. In Pleistocene Mammals of Florida, S.
David \>Jebb, ed., The UniverSity Presses of Florida,
pp.170-213. Gainesville.
1965
Wheat,
1972
The osteology of Camelops. Bulletin of the Los An-
geles County no.1. Los Angeles.
Joe Ben
The Olsen-Chubbuck site:a paleo-Indian bison kill.
Memoir s 0 f the Society for .A.'1lerican Archaeology,
no. 26, American Antiquity, vol.57, 1, pt. 2.
Washington, D.C.
269
White, Theodore
1953a A method of calculating the dietary percentage of
various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples.
American Antiquity, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.396-398. Salt
Lake City.
1953b Observations on the butchering technique of some
aboriginal peoples, no. 2. &uerican Antiquity, vol.
19, no.2, pp.160-165. Salt Lake City.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1972 Utilization of animal resources in the Peruvian
Andes. In Andes 4, Excavations at Kotosh, Peru,
1963 and 1964, Izummi Seiichi and Kazuo Terada, eds.,
University of Tokyo Press, pp.327-351. Tokyo.
1973 Utilization of animal resources i ~ the Andes. NSF
Report GS 3021. Mimeographed.
Yellen, John E.
ms. Cultural patterning in faunal remains:evidence from
the !Kung Bushmen. In Experimental Archaeology,
D. W. Ingersoll, ed., Columbia University Press.
New York. (in press)
Ziegler, Alan C.
1973 Inference form prehistoric faunal remains. Addison-
Wesley Module in Anthropology, no. 43. Indianapolis.
Appendix 1
QUECHUA OSTEOLOGICAL TERMS
English Tuqsa Huaycho La Raya
Cranium Uman tullu Uman tullu Uman tullu
Mandible K'aqlla K'aqllin K'aqllin
Incisor Yawpaq kiiun
Canine SantaYlin
Molar Waqu kirun
Premaxilla/ Senqa tullu Senqa tullu
Maxilla/
~ 1 a s a l
Frontal Mat'in Mat'in
Lagrimal/ Nawi tullu Nawi tullu
Malar
Parietal/ Uma pat a tullu Uma pata tullu
Temporal/
Occiptial
Occipital Nak' ana tullu
condyles
Hyoid Qallo cruz
Atlas Kutipillu Ukupilla Ukupilla
Cerv ical Kunka tullu Kunka tullu Kunka tullu
vertebra
Thoracic NaYlu wasan NaYlu wasan Wasan tullu
vertebra
Lumbar Raku wasan P'altawasan P' al tawasan
vertebra
Sacrum Wasan pata Chupa pata
Caudal Chupa tullu Chupa tullun
vertebra
Rib
1 st rib
Last rib
Sternum
Thorax
Anterior
Posterior
thoraxi
A.bdomen
Abdomen
Scapulc:
Humerus
Olecrenon
Waqtan
Alkachun
Sulka waqtan
Q' awin
Qhasqo
Waqta kapacha
Maki pikuru
T<ukuchu
Radius-Ulna Maki wichun
Carpal s Wichuku moqo
Metacarpals Maki chuqchuku
1st phalanx Lunachu
2nd phalnax Una nolaskucha
3rd phalanx Sillu punta
Pelvis Teqnin
Ischium
Acetabul um
~ T a q t a n
Waqaqsun
Maki palitin
Maki pikuru
Wichun
Maki tullu
Tanachu
Tonachu
Tanachu
Kanchan
Oqotin
Femur Chaki Pikuru Phaka pikuru
Patella Chasaq'an Phaka mut'in
Tibia Chaki wichun Phaka wichun
Calcaneum 'Alqocha 'Alqocha
Astragalus Asnocha Asnocha
Metatarsal Chaki chuqchuku Chuqchuku
271
Waqtan
Waqaqsun
Sulka waqtan
Qhasqo
Wiqsan
Ch'illan
Paletilla
Saqman
Wichun
Sol tako
Sol tako
Chakan
Teqnin
Qorikancha
Raku phakan
Mut'in
Nanu phakan
'AI qocha
Asnocha
Wichun
Appendix 2
COMPUTER CODE BOOK
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ ~ ~ **
* *
* site (columns 1-3) *
* *
**********************
the archaeological site number or institutional
provenience of the bone is coded here.
001 marcavalle, pcz 6-45
002 qhataq'asallacta, pcz 6-18
003 minaspata, pcz 12-9
004 tuqsa, peru
005 huaycho, peru
006 ivita, la raya, peru
007 estancia vicuna, tierra del fuego, chile
008 museo de la plata, argentina
011 waywaka, pap 2-2
012 museum of paleontology, university of california,
berkeley (ucmp)
013 museum of vertebrate zoology, university of
california, berkeley (ucmvz)
014 marca huamachuco
015 california academy of sciences
016 chavin de huantar, pan 6-18
***********************************
* *
* catalogue number (columns 5-13) *
* *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * *
this number includes horizontal and vertical provenience
information as well as an individual serial number (eg.
140-367)
***************
* card number *
***************
in the case of comparative specimens or
rare archaeological bones which require
more than 7 measuresments, col. 13 may
be used to designate the card number of
the particular case (eg. 1,2,3). if
blank, this column indicates only one
card per case.

* *
* taxon (columns 15-19) *
classification is hierarchical and in
phylogenetic order after gilmore, 1947 (column 15=
class, column 16 = order, column 17 = family, column 18
=genus, column 19=species with the exception of
some rare orders that have been lumped to acomomo-
date the coding scheme). only those taxa having some
liklihood of appearing in an andean archaeological site
haye been included.
00000 indeterminate
10000 mammal indet
10001 large mammal indet
10002 medium mammal indet
10003 smalll mammal indet
10003 small mammal indet
11000 marsupial indet
1 i 100 didelphid indet
11111 didelphis albiventris -- opposum
1112 i marmosa sp. -- mouse opposum
12000 chiroptera
13000 primate
13900 edentate
14000 rodent indet
14100 leporid indet
:4110 sylvilagus sp.
jq200 erethizontidae
14300 dinomyidae
14400 dasyproctidae
14410 dasyprocta punctatus -- agouti
14500 cavidae
14510 cavia indet
14511 cavia porcellus -- domestic cuy
14520 galea sp. -- wild cuy
14531 hydrochoerus hydrochaeris -- capybara
14541 cuniculus paca -- pac a
14542 cuniculus thomasi -- extinct paca
14543 cuniculus tacsanowski -- mountain pac a
14600 chinchillidae
273
14611 chinchilla chinchilla -- chinchilla
14621 lagidium peruanum -- mountain viscacha
14631 lagostomos sp. -- extinct plains viscacha
14700 octodontidae
14710 ctenomys sp. -- tuco-tuco
14800 abrocomidae
14810 abrocoma ablativa
14900 cricetidae
14910 cryzomys sp.
14920 akodon sp.
14930 phyllotis sp.
14941 neotomys erbiosus
14950 chichillua sahamae
14960 rattus sp. -- domestic rat
14970 mus sp. -- domestic mouse
15000 carnivora indet
15100 procyonidae
15110 procyon sp. -- racoon
15120 nasua sp.
15131 potos flavus -- kinkajou
15200 mustelid indet
15210 lutra sp. -- otter
15221 conepatus rex -- skunk
15231 galicitis furax -- huron
15300 felid indet
15301 large felid indet
15302 small felid indet
15311 felis concolor - ~ puma
15312 felis weidii -- margay
15314 felis onca -- jaguar
15315 felis pardalis -- ocelot
15316 felis domesticus -- house cat
15411 tremarctos ornatus spectacled bear
15500 canid indet
15501 large canid
15502 small canid
15511 dusicyon culpaeus -- andean fox
15521 canis familiaris -- domestic dog
15600 otarid
15611 otaria flavescens -- sea lion
15621 arctocephalus australis -- fur seal
15700 phocid indet
16000 cetacea and sirenia
17000 proboscidea
18000 perissodactyl indet
18100 tapirid indet
18110 tapirus sp. -- tapir
18200 equid indet
18201 large equid
18202 small equid
274
18211 equus caballus -- horse
19000 artiodactyl indet
19100 tayassuidae
19111 tayassu tayacu -- collared peccary
19112 tayassu pecari -- white-lipped peccary
19200 tayasuid or suid indet
19300 suidae
19311 sus scrofa -- domestic pig
19400 camelid indet
19411 lama guanicoe -- guanaco
19412 lama glama -- llama
19413 lama pacos -- alpaca
19414 lama glama x lama pacos -- huarizo
19415 vicugna vicugna x lama pacos -- paco-vicuna
19421 vicugna vicugna -- vicuna
19430 palaeolama -- large extinct camelid
19500 cervid indet
19511 odocoelius virginianus -- white-tail deer
19521 mazama sp. -- brocket
19531 pudu pudu -- pudu
19541 hippocamelus antisensis -- huemul, taruka
19600 bovid
19611 bos taurus -- e ~ r o p e a n cow
19621 ovis sp. -- european sheep
19630 sheep/goat indet
19641 capra hircus -- european goat
20000 bird
30000 reptile
40000 amphibian
50000 fish
**--***************
* 4
* sex (column 21) ~
* *
*******************
most commonly the sex of comparative specimens is coded
here. if known, the sex of archaeological specimens
also may be coded here.
o indet
male
2 !' .dale
275
* age (columns 22-24) *
* z
this field is used for comparative specimens of known
ages. columns 22-24 refer to the age in months.

* *
* element (columns 26-30) *
* *
***************************
the anatomical element that is represented by the spe-
cimen is coded here. this classification is hierar-
chical and is a slightly modified version of an ele-
ment classification developed by d. crader and d.
gifford of the department of anthropology, university
of california, berkeley.
10000 zone head
11000 era cranial indet or complete
11001 bcs braincase
11002 pmx premaxilla
11003 pmxt premaxilla with teeth
11004 max maxilla
11005 maxt maxilla with teeth
11006 pal palatine
11007 vom vomer
11008 nas nasal
11009 sph sphenoid
11010 eth ethmoid
11011 lac lacrimal
11012 frn
11013 hco
11014 hsh
11015 jug
11016 zyg
11017 orb
11018 tem
11019 sqa
11020 par
11021 occ
11022 boe
11023 ocn
11024 mas
11025 pet
frontal
horn core
horn sheath
jugal
zygomatic arch
orbital region
temporal
squamosal
pa.rietal
occipital
basioccipital
occipital condyle
mastoid process or region
petrosal
276
11026 bul
11027 pas
11028
11029 det
11030 let
11031 prt
11032 pfr
11033 spo
11034 pro
11035pto
11036 epo
11037 soc
11038 xoc
11039 cob
11040 hyq
11041 hym
11042 syp
11043 mpt
11044 qua
11045 ptg
11046 ept
11047 smx
11048 ops
11049 opr
11050 pop
11051 iop
11052 sop
11053 hya
11054 bhy
11055 chy
11056 ehy
11057 uhy
bulla
parasphenoid

dermethmoid
lateral ethmoid
parethmoid
prefrontal
sphenotic
prootic
pterotic
epiotic
supraoccipital
exoccipital
circUIl!orbital
unit hym syp mpt qua
hyomandibular
symplectic
metapterygoid
quadrate
pterygoid
entopterygoid
supramax illa
unit opr pop iop sop
operculum
preoperculum
interoperculum
suboperculum
unit bhy chy ehy
basihyal
ceratohyal
epihyal
urohyal
11058 brn branchiostegal
11059 qju quadratojugal
11060 lac lacrimal
11061 sor supraorbital
11062 oto otolith
12000 man mandible indet or complete
12001 mant mandible with tetth
12002 sym symphysis
12003 symt symphysis with teeth
12004 den dentary or corpus
12005 dent dentary with teeth
12006 ang angle or angular
12007 san surangular
12008 ram ramus
12009 crn coronoid process
12011 prt prearticular
12010 art articular condyle or articular
13000 tth tooth indet
13010 i incisor indet upper or lower indet
13011 di deciduous incisor indet upper or lower indet
13020 c upper or lower indet
13021 dc deciduous canine upper or lower indet
277
13030 P
13040 dp
13050 m
13060 cth
13070 thr
13071 dthr
13110 uiO
13111 ui1
13112 ui2
13113 ui3
13114ui4
13115 duiO
13116 dui1
i3117 dui2
13118 dui3
13119 dui4
13120 uc
13121 duc
13130 upO
13131 up1
13132 up2
13133 up3
13134 up4
13135 up34
13140 dupO
13141 dup i
13142 dup2
13143 dup3
13144 dup4
13150 UlilO
13151 um1
13152 um2
13153 um3
13154 um12
13155 um23
13160 uch
13170 uthr
13171 dutr
13210 liO
13211 li 1
13212 li2
13213 li3
13214 li4
13215 dliO
13216 dlU
13217 dli2
13218 dli3
13219 dli4
13220 lc
13221 dlc
13231 lp1
13230 lpO
13232 lp2
13233 11'3
premolar indet upper or lower indet
deCiduous premolar indet upper or lower indet
molar indet upper or lower indet
cheektooth indet upper or lower indet
toothrow upper or lower indet
deCiduous toothrow upper or lower indet
upper incisor indet
upper incisor 1
upper incisor 2
upper incisor 3
upper inc isor 4
deciduous upper incisor indet
deCiduous upper incisor 1
deciduous upper inCisor 2
deciduous upper incisor 3
deCiduous upper incisor 4
upper ca1'l ine
deciduous upper canine
upper premolar indet
upper premclar 1
upper premolar 2
upper premolar 3
upper premolar 4
upper premolar 3 or 4
deciduous upper premolar indet
deciduous upper premolar 1
deciduous upper premolar 2
deCiduous upper premolar 3
deciduous upper premolar 4
upper molar indet
upper molar 1
upper molar 2
upper molar 3
upper molar 1 or 2
upper molar 2 or 3
upper cheektooth indet
upper too throw
deciduous upper toothrow
lower incisor indet
lower inc isor 1
lower inc isor 2
lower inc isor 3
lower inc isor 4
deciduous lower inCisor indet
deciduous lower incisor 1
deciduous lower incisor 2
deciduous lower inCisor 3
deCiduous lower incisor 4
lower canine
deciduous lower canine
lower premolar 1
lower premolar indet
lower premolar 2
lower premolar 3
278
13234 Ip4 lower premolar 4
13235 Ip34 lower premolar 3 or 4
13240 dlpO deciduous lOwer premolar ind6t
13241 dlp1 deciduous lower premolar
13242 dlp2 deciduous lower premolar 2
13243 dlp3 deciduous lower premolar 3
13244 dlp4 deciduous lower premolar 4
13250 1m0 lower molar indet
13251 1m1 lower molar 1
13252 1m2 lower molar 2
13253 1m3 lower molar 3
13254 1m12 lower molar 1 or 2
13255 lm23 lower molar 2 or 3
13260 lcn lower cheektooth indet
13270 lthr lower toothrow
13271 dltr deciduous lower toothrow
14000 hyo hyoid
20000 axl axial indet
21000 vrt vertebra indet
21001 vrtr vertebral row articulated indet or mixed
21002 cen centrum indet
21003 cene centrum epiphysis indet
21100 cer cervical vertebra indet
21102 axi axis cervical vertebra 2
21103 c"',..-:<
-- oJ
cervical vertebra 3
21104 cer4 cervical vertebra 4
21101 atl atlas cervical vertebra
21105 cer5 cervical vertebra 5
21106 cer6 cervical vertebra 6
21107 cer7 cervical vertebra 7
21108 cerr cervical row articulated
21109 cerc cervical centrum
21110 cere cervical centrum epiphysis
21200 tho thoracic vertebra indet
21201 tho 1 thoracic vertebra 1
21202 tho2 thoracic vertebra 2
21203 tho3 thoracic vertebra 3
21204 tho4 thoracic vertebra 4
21205 tho5 thoracic vertebra 5
21206 tho6 thoracic vertebra 6
21207 tho7 thoracic vertebra 7
21208 tho8 thoracic vertebra 8
21209 tho9 thoracic vertebra 9
21210 th10 thoracic vertebra 10
21211 th11 thoracic vertebra 11
21212 th12 thoracic vertebra 12
21213 th13 thoracic vertebra 13
21214 th14 thoracic vertebra 14
21215 th15 thoracic vertebra 15
21216 th16 thoracic vertebra 16
21217 th17 thora.cic vertebra 17
21218 th18 thoracic vertebra 18
21219 thol last thoracic vertebra
21220 thor thoracic row articulated
279
2i22i thoc thoracic centrum
21222 thec thoracic centrum epiphysis
2i300 lum lumbar vertebra indet
21301 1 ~ 1 lumbar vertebra 1
21302 lum2 lumbar vertebra 2
21303 lum3 lumbar vertebra 3
21304 lum4 lumbar vertebra 4
21305 lum5 lumbar vertebra 5
21306 lum6 lumbar vertebra 6
21307 lum7 lumbar vertebra 7
21308 luml last lumbar vertebra
21309 lumr lumbar row articulated
21310 lumc lumbar centrum
21311 lume lumbar centrum epiphysis
21400 sac sacrum complete or sacral vertebra indet
21401 sacl sacral vertebra 1
21402 sac2 sacral vertebra 2
2 1 4 C 3 ~ ~ c 3 sacral vertebra 3
21404 sac4 sacral vertebra 4
21405 sac5 sacral vertebra 5
21406 sacl last sacral vertebra
21407 sacc sacral centrum
21408 sace sacral centrum epiphysis
21500 cau caudal vertebra
21501 caur caudal row articulated
21600 syn synsacrum
22000 rib rib indet
22100 riba anterior rib
22101 ribl first rib
22200 ribp posterior rib
22300 cos costal cartilage
23000 ste sternum or sternabrae
24000 mnb manubrium
25000 fur furculum
26000 bac baculum
30000 gir girdle Done indet
31000 pec pectoral girdle bone indet
31010 scp scapula indet or complete
31011 scpg glenoid of scapula
31012 scpa acromion of scapula
31013 scps spine of scapula
31014 scpb blade of scapula
31020 clv clavicle
31030 cor coracoid
31040 icl interclavical
31050 acr acromion bone
31060 cle cleithrum
31070 sci supracleithrum
31080 pcl postcleithrum
31090 aco anterior coracoid
32000 pel pelvis indet or complete
32010 iIi ilium
32020 isc ischium
32021 istb ischial tuberosity
280
32030 pub pubis
32040 ilis ilium plus ischium
32050 ilpb ilium plus pubis
32060 ispb ischium plus pubis
32070 ace acetabulum
32071 aili acetabulum ilium only
32072 aisc acetabulum ischium only
32073 apub acetabulum pubis only
32074 aisi acetabulum ischium and ilium only
32075 apil acetabulum pubis and ilium only
32076 apis acetabulum pubis and ischium only
32080 ppub prepubis
40000 lbn long bone indet
40500 dbcn cannon indetl proximal frag or 2 distal condyles
40501 sccn cannon indetl single condyle
40502 epcn cannon indetl condyle epipysis
41000 flb forelimb indet or articulated unit
41010 hum humerus
41210 rad radius
41300 uln ulna
41301 ulc ulna olecranon with sigmoid notch
41302 uls ulna sigmoid notch only
41402 rul radio ulna
41403 ruar radius-ulna (prox articular surface only)
41404 ruol radius-ulna (olecranon process only)
40500 met metapodial indet
41500 mcO metacarpal digit indet
41501 mcl metacarpal first digit
41502 mc2 metacarpal second digit
41503 mc3 metacarpal third digit
41504 mc4 metacarpal fourth digit
41505 mc5 metacarpal fifth digit
41506 mcm main metacarpal
41507 mca accessory metacarpal
41508 cmc carpometacarpus
42000 hlb hindlimb indet or articulated unit
42100 fem femur
42101 fmhd femur head
42102 fmeh femur head epiphysis
42103 fmgt femur greater trochanter
42200 tib tibia
42300 fib fibula or lateral malleolus
42400 tbt tibiotarsus
42500 mtO metatarsal indet
42501 mt1 metatarsal first digit
42502 mt2 metatarsal second digit
42503 mt3 metatarsal third digit
42504 mt4 metatarsal fourth digit
42505 mt5 metatarsal fifth digit
42506 mtm main metatarsal cannon bone
42507 mta accessory metatarsal
42508 tmt tarsometatarsus
42600 pat patella
50000 pod podial indet
281
51000 car carpal or manus bone indet
51001 sca scaphoid
5i002 lun lunate
51003 cun cuneiform
51004 mag magnum
51005 unc unciform
51006 pis pisiform
51007 tzd trapezoid
51008 tzm trapezium
51009 scI scapholunar
51010 rdl radiale
51011 intc intermedium carpal
51012 ulr ulnare
51013 cncl centrale carpal 1
51014 cnc2 centrale carpal 2
51015 dcl distal carpal 1
51016 dc2 distal carpal 2
51017 dc3 distal carpal 3
51018 dc4 distal carpal 4
51019 navi navicular of the carpus
51020 tri triquetal
51021 cap capitate
51022 ham hamate
51023 gmlt greater multangle
51024 lmlt lesser multangle
52000 tar tarsal or pes bone inde!t
52001 ast astragalus
52002 cal calcaneum
52003 nay of tne tarsus
52004 cub cuboid
52005 nyc naviculocuboid
52006 ento entocuneiform of tarsal
52007 cu2 intermediate cuneiform
52008 cu3 lateral cuneiform
52009 tbl tibiale
52010 intt intermedium tarsal
52011 fbr fibulare
52012 centrale tarsal
52013 dt1 distal tarsal 1
52014 dt2 distal tarsal 2
52015 dt3 distal tarsal 3
52016 dt4 distal tarsal 4
52017 tal talus of primates
282
50200 ses sesamoid proximal or distal medial or lateral front or hi
50210 pss proximal sesamoid medial or lateral front or hind indet
50211 psm proximal sesamoid medial front or hind indet
50212 psI proximal sesamoid lateral front or hind indet
50220 dss distal medial or lateral front or hind indet
50221 dsm distal sesamoid medial front ot hind indet
50222 dsl distal sesmoid lateral front or hind indet
51210 fpss front proximal sesamoid medial or lateral indet
51211 fpsm front proximal sesamoid medial
51212 fpsl front proximal sesamoid lateral
51220 fdss front distal sesamoid medial or lateral indet
51221 fdsm front distal sesamoid medial
5i222 fdsl front distal sesamoid lateral
52210 hpss hind proximal sesamoid medial or lateral indet
52211 hpsm hind proximal sesamoid medial
52212 hpsl hind proximal sesamoid lateral
52220 hdss hind distal sesamoid medial or lateral indet
52221 hdsm hind distal sesamoid medial
52222 hdsl hind distal sesamoid lateral
50100 pha phalanx indet
50110 phal first phalanx digit indet front or hind indet
50111 phll first phalanx first digit front or hind indet
50112 ph12 first phalanx second digit front or hind indet
50113 ph13 first phalanx third digit front or hind indet
50114 ph14 first phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet
50115 ph15 first phalanx fifth front or hind indet
50120 pha2 second phalanx digit inGet
50122 ph22 second phalanx second digit front or hind indet
50123 ph23 second phalanx third digit front or hind indet
50121 ph21 second p h a l a r ~ first digit front or hind indet
50124 ph24 second phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet
50125 ph25 second phalanx fifth digit front or hind indet
50130 pha3 third phalanx digit indet
50133 ph33 third phalanx third digit front or hind indet
50134 ph34 third phalanx fourth digit fron t or hind indet
50135 ph35 third phalanx fifth digit front or hind indet
50132 ph32 third phalanx second digit front or hind indet
50140 pha4 fourth phalanx digit indet front or hind indet
50143 ';.ha3 fourth phalanx third digit front or hind indet
50144 pha4 fourth phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet
50154 pha5 fifth phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet
51110 fp10 front first p h a l a r ~ ~ digit indet
51111 fp11 front first phalanx first digit
51112 fp12 front first p h a l ~ ~ second digit
51113 fp13 front first p h a l a r ~ third digit
51114 fp14 front first phalanx fourth digit
51115 fp15 front first phalanx fifth digit
51120 fp20 front second phalanx digit indet
51121 fp21 front second phalanx first digit
5i122 fp22 front second phalanx second digit
51123 fp23 front second phalanx third digit
51124 fp24 front second phalanx fourth digit
51125 fp25 front second phalanx fifth digit
51130 fp30 front third phalanx digit indet
51132 fp32 front third phalanx second digit
51133 fp33 front third phalanx third digit
51134 fp34 front third phalanx fourth digit
51135 fp35 front third phalanx fifth digit
51140 fp40 front fourth phalanx digit indet
51143 fp43 front fourth phalanx third digit
51144 fp44 front fourth p h a l ~ ~ fourth digit
51154 fp54 front fifth phalanx fourth digit
52110 hp10 hind first phalanx digit indet
52111 hpl1 hind first p h a l ~ ~ first digit
52112 hp12 hind first phalanx second digit
283
52ii3 hp13 hind first phalanx third digit
52114 hp14 hind first phalanx fourth digit
52115 hp15 hind first phalanx fifth digit
52120 hp20 hind second phalanx digit indet
52121 hp21 hind second phalanx first digit
52122 hp22 hind second phalanx second digit
52123 hp23 hind second phalanx third digit
52124 hp24 hind second phalanx fourth digit
52i25 hp25 second phalanx fifth digit
52130 hp30 hind third phalanx digit indet
52132 hp32 hind third phalanx second digit
52133 hp33 hind third phalanx third digit
52134 hp34 hind third phalanx fourth digit
52i35 hp35 hind third phalanx fifth digit
52140 hp40 hind fourth phalanx digit indet
52143 hind fourth phalanx third digit
52144 hp44 hind fourth phalanx fourth digit
52145 hp45 hind fourth phalanx fifth digit
52150 hp50 hind fifth phalanx digit indet
52151 hp51 hind fifth phalanx first digit
52152 hp52 hind fifth second digit
52153 hp53 hind fifth phalanx third digit
52154 hp54 hind fifth phalanx fourth digit
50160 hoof hoof cover
61000 der dermal bones
61001 ray fin ray
61002 scu scute
61003 crp carapace
61004 pIa plastron
61005 skin skin
61006 scI scale
/5.u 00 . pectoral spine
70000 antler
70200 antt antler tyne
70400 antb antler base
90000 nid totally nonidentifiable bone
* portion (columns 31-33) *
* *

the area of the complete bone from which the archaeo-
logical fragment is derived is coded here.
vertical portion (columns 31)
complete
2 proximal
284
3 middle portion
4 distal
5 LTldet
6 proximal epiphysis
7 distal epiphysis
9 na
horizontal portion (columns 32-33)
01 complete bone
02 anterior (dorsal for phalanges)
03 antero-lateral
04 lateral
05 postero-lateral
06 posterior (ventral for phalanges)
07 postero-medial
08 medial
10 antero-medial
11 lateral or medial indet
12 anterior or posterior indet
13 indet
99 na
********************
* ~
* side (column 35) *
* *
********************
the side of the body from which the specimen is
derived is coded here.
o indet
1 right
2 left
3 medial (vertebrae)
4 complete (right and left)
9 na
***********************************
* *
* fracture pattern (columns 37-38) *
* *
***********************************
a subjective description of the manner in which the
specimen is fractured is coded here.
285
00 complete bone (no
01 half bone/ split longitudinally,
02 half bone/ split longitudinally, latero-medially
03 half bone/ split crosswise
04 proximal epiphysis intact/ no shaft
05 proximal articulation intact/ no shaft
06 proximal articulation intact/ shaft split crosswise
07 proximal articulation shaft split spirally
08 proximal articulation intact/ shaft split diagonally
09 proximal articulation fragment/ no shaft
10 proximal articulation fragment/ shaft split crosswise
11 prox art frag/ shaft split long, antero-posteriorally
12 prox art frag/ shaft split long, latero-medially
13 shaft complete (tube)
14 shaft fragment/ split crosswise
15 shaft fragment/ split longitudinally
16 shaft fragment/ split indet
17 distal art frag/ shaft split long, latero-medially
18 distal art frag/ shaft split long, antero-posteriorally
19 distal art frag/ shaft split crosswise
20 distal articulation fragment/ no shaft
21 distal articulation intact/ shaft split diagonally
22 distal articulation intact/ shaft split spirally
23 distal articulation intact/ shaft split crosswise
24 distal articulation intact/ no shaft
25 distal epiphysis intact/ no shaft
26 proximal epiphysis frag/ split antero-posteriorally
27 proximal epiphysis frag/ split latero-medially
28 distal epiphysis frag/ split antero-posteriorally
29 distal epiphysis frag/ split latero-medially
30 prox radius-ulna split crosswise thru semi-lunar nctch/
shaft split crosswise
31 prox radius-ulna split crosswise between fusion plane
and semi-lunar notch/ shaft split crosswise
32 olecranon split longitudinally or diagonally/ shaft
split crosswise
33 prox radius-ulna split crosswise thru semi-lunar notch/
shaft split diagonally
34 prox radius-ulna split crosswise between fusion DIane
and semi-lunar notch/ shaft split diagonally
35 olecranon split longitudinally or diagonally/ shaft
split diagonally
36 prox radius-ulna split crosswise thru semi-lunar notch/
shaft split spirally
37 prox radius-ulna split crosswise between fusion DIane
and semi-lunar notch! shaft split spirally
38 olecranon split longitudinally or diagonally/ shaft
39 olecranon only/ split crosswise
40 olecranon only/ split diagonally
41 olecranon only/ split longitudinally
70 calcaneum missing cuboid/fibular facet area
80 proximal femur split crosswise across neck
81 proximal femur split longitudinally between head and
286
greater trochanter
90 unique fracture
95 fracture pattern indetl fragment too small
96 smashed(compression cracking)
97 intact except for one corner or protuberance broken off
98 fresh fracture (during excavation or after)
*
*
* cut marks (columns 40-44) *
* *
* * * * * ~ * * * * * * ~ ~ ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * *
the number, orientation and position cn the bone of
any definite cut marks are coded here.
number of marks (column 48)
o none present
1 one present
2 two present
3 three present
4 four present
5 five present
6 six present
7 seven present
8 eight or more present
9 unspecified number present
orientation of marks (column 49)
o none present
1 longitudinal orientation
2 crosswise orientation
3 diagonal orientation
4 any combination of above
5 random orientation
1 radially to articular surface (eg. glenoid)
vertical position of marks (column 50)
......................................
o none present
1 complete
2 proximal
3 middle portion
4 distal
6 proximal shaft
7 distal shaft
8 multiple sides
287
9 indet
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
horizontal position of marks (columns 51-52)
none present
complete bone
anterior (dorsal
antero-lateral
lateral
postero-lateral
-P_ ...
.LVJ. phalanges)
posterior (ventral for phalanges)
postero-medial
medial
antero-medial
lateral or medial indet
anterior posterior indet
indet
shaft fragment
multiple locations on more than one surface)
extreme end (eg. on keel of cannon condyle)
lateral and medial edges ( ego distal humerus)

* *
* modification (column 46) *
* *
****************************
any indication that the specUnen was intentionally
modified by man or scavenger is ooded here. codes are
also provided to alert the analyst to any unique condi-
tion which is described elsewht:!C'e in non-computerized
form.
o unmodified
2 definitely worked
3 rodent gnawed
4 carnivore gnawed
5 possibly gnawed
7 *unique condition flag (check separate, non-computer-
ized reference for details of bone's condition
8 extra boney growth
9 *pathology flag (check separate, non-computerized
for details on bone's condition).
288
* *
* burning (column 48) *
* *
* * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
a subjective description of any burning that the bone
may have suffered is coded here.
o unburned
1 burned black
2 calcined
3 locally affected (only one portion of bone)
4 slightly affected (light burning over entire surface)
5 possibly affected
********************************
* *
* fusion state (columns 50-51) *
* *
* * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the state of fusion of each bone element is coded here.
00 indeterminate
01 completely fused
02 fusing (fusion line still quite obvious)
03 unfused
04 proximal complete/ distal complete
05 proximal complete/ distal fusing
06 proximal complete/ distal unfused
07 proximal fusing/ distal complete
08 proximal fusing/ distal fusing
06
09 proximal fusing/distal unfused
10 proximal unfused/ distal complete
11 proximal unfused/ distal fusing
12 proximal unfused/ distal unfused
13 fetal or neonatal
30 radius unfused with ulna proximally
31 radius unfused with ulna distally
32 radius fusing with ulna proximally
33 radius fusing with ulna distally
40 humerus head unfused with itself, latero-medially
41 distal humerus/ posterior tuberosities unfused
50 pubic symphysis unfused
51 ,ubic symphysis fusing
52 pubic symphysis completely fused
53 ischial tuberosLty unfused
54 ischial tuberosity fused
289

* *
* weight (columns 53-55)
* *
***************************
the weight of the specDnen from 001 gram to 999 grams
is coded here.

* *
* maximum dimension (columns 51-59) *
* *
the maximum dimension in millimeters of the specimen,
including any breakage, is coded here. this providee a
measure of the relative degree of bone comminution.
********************************
* *
* measurements (columns 60-80) *
* *

290
seven possible measurement fields of three columns in length
are provided on the first card. additional measurements may
ba en subsequent cards in columns 60-80, if necessary,
in which case the last column of the catalog no. field (col 13
is reserved for the card number.
measurements are expressed in millimeters and coded with an
implicit decimal point after the first two columns of each
field (f3. 1)
each bone element has individual measurements due to
differences on anatomy.
taken on the humerus are
metacarpal. however, an
most common measurements
standardize the positions
bone measurements.
thus, for example, the measurements
distinct from those taken on the
attempt has been made to confine the
to the first card of a case and to
of the following universal long
proximal fields (col. 60-68)
proximal lateral-medial width (col. 60-62)
proximal anteri0r posterior width (col. 63-65)
other proximal measurement (col. 66-68)
distal fields (col. 69-77)
distal lateral-medial width (69-71)
distal anterior-posterior width (col. 72-74)
other distal measurement (col. 75-77)
other measurements (proximal, distal or shaft)
this standardization, of course, is less suited to non- long
bones such as vertebrae.
291
EXPLANATION OF PLATES
#1 Two adult male guanacos. Instituto de la Patagonia,
Pu n t a Ar en as, Ch i 1 e .
#2 Adult male llama and friend. IVITA, La Raya. (Llamas
normally do not carry men. This one was mounted only as
a lark) .
#3 A.dult male a.nd female alpacas in mating cor:;al. IVITA,
La Raya.
#4 Juvenile and adult vicunas in chaco corral. Hacienda
Cala Cala.
#5 Ventral throat slit method of camelid slaughter. IVITA,
La Raya.
#6 Dorsal stab method of camelid slaughter. IVITA, La
Raya.
#7 Ch'illa method of camelid slaughter -- butcher making
abdominal incision. Cooperativa Huaycho.
#8 Ch'illa method of camelid slaughter -- butcher breaking
the ascending aorta. Cooperativa Huaycho.
#9 Slaughtered alpaca covered with a poncho in order not
to offend the rest of the herd. Tuqsa.
293
#10 Coca offering to spirit of recently slaughtered alpaca.
Cooperativa Huaycho.
#11 Disarticulation of the carpal/metacarpal jOint. Tambo,
La Raya.
#12 Disarticulated tarsal/metatarsal joint. Cooperativa
Huaycho.
#13 Breaking the pubic wi th a k' achina rumi.
Tambo, La Ra ya .
#14 Using a k'aqlla k'aqchana waskha to disarticulate the
mandile at the temporal-mandibular joint. Tuqsa.
#15 Using a k'achina rumi to split a vertebra
of convenient size:Tuqsa.-
into chunks
#16 Alpaca ffietapodials reconstructed after controlled con-
sumption experiment. Tuqsa.
#17 Alpaca humeri reconstructed after controlled consump-
tion experiment. Tuqsa.
#18 Alpaca radius-ulnae reconstructed after controlled con-
sumption experiment. Tuqsa.
#19 Alpaca femora reconstructed after controlled consump-
tion experiment. Tuqsa.
294
#20 Alpaca tibiae reconstructed after controlled consump-
tion experiment. Tuqsa.
#21 Wich'ufta use to separate warp and weft threads. IVITA,
La Raya.
#22 Child's play corral populated with bone animals. Tuqsa.
PLATE 1
PLATE 2
PLATE 3
PLATE 4
PLATE 5
PLATE 6
PLATE 7
PLATE 8
PLATE 9
PLATE 10
PLATE 11
PLATE 12
~ ~ - ~ " . : : : : : . , . ". - . -". .
. ~ ' : ' ~ . ' ~ . ~
~ ;> .'
PLATE 13
PLATE 14
PLATE 15
PLATE 16
PLATE 17
PLATE 18
PLATE 19
PLATE 20
PLATE 21
PLATE 22