Archaeological Ceramics:

A Review of Current Research

Edited by

Simona Scarcella

BAR International Series 2193

2011
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2193

Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research

© Archaeopress and the individual auhtors 2011

ISBN 978 1 4073 0748 0

Printed in England by CMP Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 THE SWALLOW POTTERS:
SEASONALLY MIGRATORY STYLES IN THE ANDES

Gabriel Ramón Joffre

Abstract: Each year, right after the main harvest, rural potters leave their home-communities to make domestic pots for
people in other places. They are the swallow potters. For more than a century, and, in several parts of the world,
ethnographers have documented swallows. However, archaeologists have rarely addressed this phenomenon when
explaining pottery production. Based on fieldwork in more than thirty communities with potters, I will characterize
these cyclically migrant potters of the Andes, emphasizing their role as agents of stylistic transformation.
I provide an ethno-archaeological definition of swallows, and also propose a preliminary typology (six cases), to help
explain comparable material from the Andean pre-colonial record and early colonial sources. To formulate the
typology, swallows are classified according to their routes, relationships with target-communities, tools, technical
styles, and sources of raw materials. My typology provides a comprehensive tool for giving visibility to swallows in the
remote past. It demonstrates a truly dynamic use of concepts such as operational sequence and technical style for
explaining recurrent processes of hybridization in material culture.

Keywords: Itinerant potters, pottery production, Andes, ethno-archaeology, itinerant production.

Introduction
Andean archaeology is based on certain principles or
rules. These are mainly related with ceramic evidence,
which is the core element used for elaborating
chronologies and establishing relations between styles.
More precisely, these rules depend on our Figure 1: Pot’s biography in relation with space. The most frequent option is
conceptualization of the life cycle of pottery, from the underlined.
extraction of raw materials to the final discarding of
the vessel. For instance, among the indicated Here I will focus on the so-called ‘swallow potters’ to
principles, in pre-colonial Andean contexts it is explore one aspect of that sequence: the relation
assumed that all the steps of the operational sequence between home village and place(s) of production. I
prior to the distribution of the ceramic vessels are will show that, contrary to what is expected in
performed at the same location, the home village archaeology, ethnographic observation have shown
(Figure 1).

Figure 2: Some sites mentioned in the text.

160
that many potters have been moving seasonally outside
their own communities to produce pottery for other
people. Yet, their ubiquity in the ethnographic record,
swallow potters have been ignored by excavators,
making Ravines’ remark (1978, 406) an imperative: ‘It
remains to elucidate, a transcendent aspect in
archaeological explanation: the migratory potters’
(see also Rice 1987, 183).1
Figure 3: Villages with potters visited in the NPA (1999-2008).
Definition
In the Americas the term ‘swallow’ has been applied to
seasonally migrant workers in general, like the thousands
of Mexicans that used to travel annually to harvest cotton
in the Southern United States (Miller 1964). With
Sabogal (1987, 17-30) here, I extend this category to
artisans, people who make objects. Compared with
itinerant, peregrine or peripatetic, the term swallow
implies something else: collective, seasonal, migration
related with the agricultural cycle.
Comparing swallow potters to other three groups defined
by their mobility clarifies my characterization. First, in
Southern Peru, ethnographers have observed that some
groups of llama herders, from the puna (the highest
ecological level with permanent human occupation, over
4000masl) regularly visited villages with potters to get
vessels. Later, they exchanged these pots for other
products in the lower areas. However, they never make
1
Precise locations and data for the places with potters here mentioned in
Figures 2, 3, 4. In the last decade I have conducted fieldwork mostly in
the Northern Peruvian Andes, NPA, but here I incorporate evidence
from all the Andes. For more details on the methodology and results see
Ramón 2008a.
161
pots (e.g. Flores 1977, 145; Torres 1976; Valderrama and
Escalante 1983, 71-2). Second, swallows also differ from
their itinerant colleagues from Los Colorados (Tucumán,
Argentina) who travelled with their vessels to several
villages only after firing: the Tucumanean potters were
peddlers, but not itinerant producers (Cremonte 1984)
(see Figure 5).
Third, swallow potters have a different schedule than the
Ongii who made domestic pottery in Korea. During the
19th century the Ongii travelled constantly and
established themselves in places where raw materials and
fuel were available, without a fixed residence. However,
the Ongii were permanently itinerant, not seasonal as are
the swallows (Sayers and Rinzler 1987).
The swallows operate at a different scale and with a
different procedure than the three previous cases, they are
more generalized phenomena; while at the same time
they have a more specific mode of itinerancy or cyclical
migration. Swallows produce pots in their destinations
villages. Since swallows have a seasonal pattern, it is
necessary to contextualize their activities within their
annual routine. In the Peruvian highlands, the height of
the dry season (roughly from May to November)
coincides with the major features that encourage the
movement of the swallows from their home village: the
main harvests, the timing of communal craft manufacture,
and, the ideal conditions for travelling with products for
exchange (Guaman Poma [1615], 1153-71). Currently,
these features still make the highland summer the best
period for making pots and for general mobility. The
period right after the harvest is the best time for
migrating to produce pots, and this varies by crop and
ecological level of the destination village. Commonly,
potters can trade their product for greater quantities of
staples in the days following harvest (Browman 1990,
421; Mohr 1992, 68, 76). (Figure 6)
Beyond the Andes, itinerant pottery manufacturers
have been identified in, at least, three continents
(Nicklin 1979, 443-4). For instance, in NW Ethiopia,
where the Falasha potters travelled to neighbouring
villages inhabited by people from different ethnic
groups to make pots (Simoons 1960, 188-9, 204). The
same happens with the potters from Madak, in the high
section of the Chitral valley, NW Pakistan. These
potters are also farmers, but in the dry season they
travel to the Summer Palace (8km from Chitral) where
they make pots for two months with local clay (Rye
and Evans 1976, 13). Similar potters were observed in
Ladakh, western Tibet (Asboe 1946) and two
Mediterranean islands (Cyprus and Crete) (Ionas
2000,151, 213-5, 233; London 1989; Voyatzoglou
1974). However, there are differences in scale; for
instance, the Thrapsano jar makers (Crete) work on a
highly specialized guild-level that is only comparable
with one of our cases (see below). Even though these
three places are geographically remote from the Andes,
these swallows similarly travel in summer, just after
the main harvest. More significantly, they also retain
DEPARTMENT VILLAGE [ DISTRICT, PROVINCE] LIFE-ZONE (TROPICAL)* ALTITUDE (mts.) UTM
1. Olleros [Ayabaca, Ayabaca] bosque seco Premontano 1546 17 652562E 9478577N
2. San Miguel [Santo Domingo, Morropón] bosque seco Premontano 1551 17 626997E 9443858N
P IURA

3. Soccha [Sondorillo, Huancabamba] monte Premontano 2040 17 673150E 9410983N

4. Rumichaca [Huarmaca, Huancabamba] bosque húmedo Montano Bajo 2480 17 661715E 9380878N
5. Simbilá [Catacaos, Piura] desierto superárido Premontano 36 17 538441E 9419851N
6. Olmos [Olmos, Lambayeque] matorral desértico Premontano 191 17 640259E 9339611N
LAMBA -
YEQUE

7. Ollería [Mórrope, Lambayeque] desierto desecado Premontano 24 17 610431E9281337N

8. Sinsicap [Sinsicap, Otuzco] monte Premontano/estepa espinosa Montano Bajo 2302 17 747609E 9131449N
L A L IBERTAD

9. Huacaday [Otuzco, Otuzco] estepa espinosa Montano Bajo 2651 17 758250E 9118818N
10. Caulimalca [Usquil, Otuzco] bosque húmedo Montano/bosque muy húmedo Montano 2422 17 789368E 9135479N
11. Sauce [Sanagorán, Sanchez Carrión]/ bosque seco Montano Bajo/bosque húmedo Montano 2956 17 814420E 9136815N
Urpay [Huamachuco, Sanchez Carrión]
12. El Alto/Succha [Mollepata, Santiago de Chuco] bosque seco Montano Bajo 2855 18 175206E 9093391N
13. Miraflores [Santa Rosa, Pallasca] bosque seco Montano Bajo 2807 17 824474E 9054569N
14. San Isidro [Aco, Corongo] estepa Montano 3372 18 182214E 9056592N
15. Collpapampa [Cashapampa, Sihuas] estepa espinosa Montano Bajo 3459 18 209112E 9046972N
16. Conopa/Shiullá [Pomabamba, Pomabamba] bosque húmedo Montano 3788 18 221420E 9029305N
17. Jancapampa [Pomabamba, Pomabamba] bosque húmedo Montano/ bosque muy húmedo Montano 3500 18 223184E 9020795N
18. Llumpa [Llumpa, Mariscal Luzuriaga] bosque húmedo Montano/ bosque seco Montano Bajo 2864 18 239849E 9008658N
ANCASH

19. Allpabamba [Yanama, Yungay] bosque húmedo Montano 2893 18 239179E 9002048N
20. Uchusquillo/Tarapampa [San Luis, Fitzcarrald] bosque húmedo Montano 2872 18 242140E 9003286N
21. Chinlla [Acochaca, Asunción] bosque muy húmedo Montano 3212 18 237937E 8990785N
22. Acopalca [Huari, Huari] bosque húmedo Montano Bajo 3056 18 260087E 8967964N
23. Yacya/Poyoyoc [Huari, Huari] páramo muy húmedo Subalpino/bosque húmedo Montano Bajo 3520 18 261873E 8961933N
24. Mallas [Huari, Huari] bosque húmedo Montano Bajo/ páramo muy húmedo Subalpino 3164 18 259464E 8959977N
25. Pariahuanca/Aco [Pariahuanca, Carhuaz] bosque seco Montano Bajo 2800 18 216255E 8963568N
26. Taricá [Taricá, Huaraz] bosque seco Montano Bajo 2850 18 216269E 8961723N
* Based on the Mapa Ecológico del Perú 1976. The names remain in Spanish to fit with the map, but the initials grassed correspond to the universal
nomenclature. Two different life-zones are included in those cases where the villages are in the border of these areas.

Figure 4: Villages with potters in the NPA (administrative, ecological and absolute location).

Location of activities
Types of
potters around the destination village
home village home village
host
{n} 1, 2,3,4,5 5 5
{1} 1 2,3,4,5
{2a} 1 2,3,4 5 Figure 6: Swallow’s itinerary and calendar. Potters return home after each
{2b} 1a 1b 2,3,4 5 trip.
{3} 2 1,3,4,5
{4} 1 1,2,3,4,5
{5} 1 2,3,4,5 their technical style when they visit destination
{6} 1,2,3,4 5 5
villages.2
{6a} 1 2,3,4,5
peddlers 1, 2, 3, 4 5 5
A dynamic typology
Figure 5: The swallows and the location of the steps of the operational Six cases will be presented to consider comparative
sequence. Activities: 1. collection/processing of raw materials (a. clay, b: patterns among swallow production including one that
other materials). 2. Manufacture. 3. Decoration, 4. Firing, 5. Distribution. reaches the extremes of our definition. For information
Distribution usually occurs at several locations (along the route from the on these cases in relation to the steps of the operational
home village to the destination village): here we emphasize the vessels
produced by the potter during his swallow activity. Type of potter: {n} the sequence see Figure 5.
one assumed as normal in Andean archaeology (cf. Figure 1). The other
cases {1}-{6a} are described in the text. For comparison, the potters- 2
peddlers are included (cf. Cremonte 1984, Sillar 2000, 93). For the definition of technical style: the manufacturing technique by
which we may identify specific communities, I follow Dietler and
Herbich 1989, and Gosselain 2000. For the use of technical style in the
Andes see R amón 2008a. Hereafter technical style will be also called
internal style to distinguish it from the decorative or external style.

162
The cluster {1}. On All Souls’ Day 2000, when we
talked with Francisco Flores (Pariahuanca, Ancash)
[25],3 he had just returned home from Huancahuasi,
40km N. He travelled in a public van, first to the city
of Caraz (1h), and then to that hamlet (1.5h), where he
remained for 15 days potting: ‘I go every year, to a
different place, this year I needed to go there, I return
every two, three or four years’ (Figures 7, 8).

Figure 8: Case {1} The cluster. Trips by Francisco Flores, Pariahuanca.

In 1999 Mr. Flores worked in Mato, and the year

before in Anforacá, both close to Huancahuasi
(Huaylas province). At the time of the interview (early
November), he was considering a visit to Huinó, a
a hamlet above Mato, and after that he still wanted to
work on the western slope of the White Cordillera, in
the village of Llacshu or its adjoining Parón: ‘if I go
continually [to the same place], they have pots, thus
they do not take [them]’. Mr. Flores travels alone -his
sons are at school- with four or five sacks of raw
material (clay and ground slate) already mixed and his
tools. On this occasion –his trip to Huancahuasi- he
went with three sacks, and 30 potters’ plates. When he
arrives at a hamlet to work, locals usually host him.
Francisco begins his labour, and while he works
potential customers approach him, telling him what
vessel forms they want. Right after firing, they bring
b their grains (or other crops) and collect the vessels.
During this stay in Huancahuasi he fired 120 pots,
some cántaros [pitchers], cazuelas [casseroles] and
tostadoras [toasters] (all are medium size vessels). He
explained that people in those villages do not make
pots because nobody knows the craft, and there is no
material available. In June 2001 in a hamlet near Mato,
María Flores told us that Francisco arrived there
regularly to make ceramic vessels, the last time being
that December.
Mr. Flores has also worked in Macate, in the northern
extreme of the Huaylas province, where he brought
more material (six to seven sacks of mixture) ‘because
it is farther away’. He has also gone west with his
work-material, 25km to the Coast, near to the ex-
hacienda San Jacinto (318masl, 09°7’ 60S 78° 16’
60W) in the lower Nepeña valley. There, the only
change in the process was in the fuel used for firing:
c he added some sugar cane bagasse, which is commonly
Figure 7: Case {1}. Francisco Flores making vessels at home, Pariahuanca
found in the lowlands. He is not the only one: every
[25], Ancash. Below: (left) like all the potters from his town, he uses the weekend peasants and artisans from the highlands
cutana [clay anvil]; (right) some small potter’s plates [tilla] that Flores uses (Jimbe [Santa], Pamparomas and Caraz [Huaylas])
on his trips (pictures by M. J. Tavera). visit this area to exchange their products at the market
[L. Garay, San Jacinto].4 The difference is that the

3 4
All the villages with potters in the NPA are identified with a number in Hereafter the informer’s name is in square brackets indicating location
square brackets, also used in Figures 2 and 3. when necessary.

163
other people arrive at San Jacinto with finished
products. Finally, Francisco has worked in the south,
in the village of Olleros, Recuay. Despite its name
(‘Potters’) this place has no pottery production today.
Considering all of his working trips, he covers a
distance of 140km north-south (Macate-Olleros) and
70km east-west, and to this elevation must be added:
3000m of difference between the highest and lowest
place (Parón-San Jacinto). One question that arises
from this data is: why does Flores need to keep on
moving?
Before answering this, the effect of the presence of
motorized vehicles must be noted. Some swallows
used to travel with their materials on donkeys, but we
should not ignore the possibility that motorized
transport may have increased the range of the working
area as well as the number of places visited in a single
year by artisans like Flores. In the Ancash highlands,
potters usually work in the dry-season. Nevertheless,
in the case of Pariahuanca [25] and its neighbour
Taricá [26], a connection with the huge market of
Huaraz (held on Monday and Thursday), and those
smaller in Caraz, Carhuaz and Yungay (simultaneously
on Sunday and Wednesday), have allowed them to
increase their production period. Actually, the
activities of Mr. Flores and his particular context
(Pariahuanca) fit well with Peacock’s (1982, 9)
expectations about the individual workshop: pottery is
his main source of subsistence, he serves very
dispersed markets and, despite not using the wheel or
the kiln, his technology grants him the possibility to
produce throughout the whole year. Francisco told us
that he works most of the year because the crops on his
land are insufficient to sustain the eight persons of his
household. In general, every year after April, he
travelled around the Huaylas region timing his work to
coincide with the harvesting period in each area. At
home (Pariahuanca), the periods when he produces
most vessels are right before Christmas and the
National Peruvian Celebration, which falls in the same
period as the local festivity, Santiago (24-31 July).
Francisco has never found other swallow potters in the
hamlets that he visited, but they are not rare in the
department of Ancash.5
The favourite one {2}. In spatial terms our second
type is more specific than the previous one. Instead of
a web of places, in this case potters have a main
destination village or area usually characterized by its
high agricultural production. In general, exchange
among communities is promoted when some of the
diverse resources (animal, crops, minerals) or
manufactured goods necessary for subsistence are
found beyond their respective territorial boundaries.
This can happen among different ecological levels or
in different places at the same altitude. It is common in
5
For instance, in Huata (2000masl, 9°1’10” S 77°52’10”W, Yungay),
seasonally visited by swallows from Conchucos (Fonseca, Arquinio and
Gammarra 1967: II, 405). For Taricá [26] see Donnan (1971, 464-5),
and, in November 1999, Graciano Huánuco [26] told us that he was
travelling to Yaután (55km W; near Casma, on the coast) to make pots.
164
the Andes for villages with low production of crops to
be linked with mikuy areas [granaries]. According to
The curse of the Inca, a tale from Chinlla [21], the
village was condemned to make pots by an Inca ruler
who located the quarry of one of the raw materials
within its lands and the agriculturally productive
territories 40km E, around Llamellín.6 For at least four
generations artisans from Chinlla have been travelling
there to barter pots for crops. In general, from every
village in Southern Conchucos where pottery is
produced [20-24] people go to Llamellín and other
nearby places towards the eastern extreme of
Conchucos, in trips of at least two days, one way, to
barter. Llamellín is the favourite area for the potters of
Southern Conchucos.
Llamellín (3500masl) is the most noteworthy place in
the rich eastern Conchucos seasonally visited by
artisans of the western slope, their relatives or local
middle-men. During the 1960s people from Chacas
(i.e. Chinlla [21]) and Huari (i.e. Acopalca [22] and
Yacya [23]) used to bring their pots and chirimoyas to
exchange for potatoes during the harvests in Puños,
Miraflores and Matacancha (all in Huamalíes,
Huánuco; 30km E from Huari). Both items were highly
appreciated by the potato growers, and the number of
Conchucos potters travelling to Huánuco increased
during bad harvests in their hometown. Pots from
Chacas and Huari were well renowned among peasants
from that western section of Huánuco, who used them
to prepare food and corn beer (Fonseca 1973, 132).
According to our interviews, a map showing the
distribution areas for each of the villages with potters
from southern Conchucos will reveal a dense zone of
intersection around Llamellín: people of all of those
villages [20-24] mentioned that location, famous as a
central place of exchange (market) and for its grains
(wheat and barley) (Raimondi 1873, 221). The
attraction of the eastern mikuy area and especially
Llamellín has been such that it has actually altered the
spatial location of pottery production. It has been the
driving force behind the second type of swallows.
Most of the potters that informed us in Chinlla (n=15)
mentioned Llamellín as one of the destinations for
their pots, and some referred to one specific strategy,
that can be recognized as the first variety {2a} of this
case. Gerardo Cruz told us that he used to go to
Llamellín once a year with his father and four donkeys
carrying their raw materials (clay and ground slate).
They worked and camped in a flat area in the outskirts
of the village. After firing they walked to the Llamellín
and bartered their pots. With the same goal, two
brothers, Celso and Mañu Calero used to travel with
tools and raw materials. However, they worked and
camped in a cave [machay] in the high puna in
Contadera, half a day from Llamellín. They selected
that location because the fuel for the firing (puna straw
and achupaya) was immediately available at that
altitude and the cave was the best place to perform
their craft and sleep in an area when hours without
6
On The curse of the Inca, I use the version in Márquez (1965, 150-1)
and the testimony of J. Laveriano, 2005.
sunlight mean temperatures below freezing. After
firing they walked to Llamellín and exchanged their
pots [J. Laveriano].
Considering the scarcity of data about this specific
variety of swallows, historical information is still more
useful for raising questions, than for answering them.
During the national census of 1876 one male potter
was recorded in Llamellín (Censo General 1878: I,
31). We do not know the season during which these
data were collected and we also know the pitfalls of
this census, but since no pottery production has ever
been identified in this area, was the recorded potter a
swallow or a local one? At least, now we can say that
in the absence of consistent historical information,
both options are equally possible, and it is exactly the
same when archaeologists find isolated groups of tools
outside of the expected area.
Also in Conchucos, but towards its northern extreme, a
second variety of the same type of swallows has been
identified {2b}. The village of Conopa [16] is placed
at the border between the quechua and jallga
ecological levels. Conopan potters exchange their
produce in a wide range of hamlets, mainly in the
lower elevations, since they have their own access to
the resources of the higher zone, the jallga (the local
name for puna). Within this web of targets they have
preferred hamlets. They mostly go with their clay,
since the complementary ingredient (ground slate) is
widespread in Ancash. Indalecio Lopez explained his
relation with the hamlet of Huanchacbamba, located a
one-day’s walk from Conopa. The grandfather of
Lopez used to go there to make pots, receiving the
assistance of his son (Indalecio’s father). Years later,
Indalecio went to Huanchacbamba to help his father to
make pots for several days out of the three week
periods when his father used to work there. After these
decades of contact, five years ago, Mr. López was
contracted to make ceramic vessels in Huanchacbamba
by his relatives there: a cousin and an uncle. It was not
clear if the kin-relation was consequence or cause of
the interaction related with pottery manufacture.
However, what matters here is that both parties have
been fuelling each other. For the firing, these swallow
potters employed local fuel equivalent to that used in
Conopa. Indalecio’s relatives used to organize the
distribution of the pottery produced by him. After
finishing, he returns home with grain and other crops.
He would often stay from one day to a week. One
week of work allows him to fire a complete ‘hornada’
[full-oven], around six big urpus (pitchers to contain
liquids), six big azuanas (vessels to prepare chicha,
corn beer), six medium azuanas, and the same quantity
of varied little forms (puyñu, manca).
Some differences stand out between these two varieties
in the second type of swallows. First, there is a
question of scale: in the ChinllaLlamellín example,
the relation is village to village (Figure 9, {2a}). The
attraction was mainly the abundance of crops in the
lower region, and in this case the artisans stayed
outside the destination village to avoid extra expenses,
(e.g., hiring people to collect raw materials or paying
for shelter).
165
Figure 9: Case {2a} and {2b}. The main difference between these two
varieties is the type of link with the population of the destination village
Second, in the ConopaHuanchacbamba example,
besides the link between areas, there were direct social
relations shaped through three generations (Figure 9,
{2b}). They provide additional benefits, making the
potters’ target even more specific. If in the first variety
production and distribution are assumed entirely by
potters, in the second distribution is assumed by the
hosts. It seems: the closer the relation artisan-host, the
greater the intervention of the latter in the output. This
will be explored with more detail in the next case.
Inter-communal peonage {3}. In contrast to the
previous types of swallows, in this third case both the
home village of the potters and their destination have
potters and raw materials. So, why is the trip
necessary? The villages of Acopalca [22] and Yacya
[23] (Huari, Ancash) are only separated by a two hours
walk. Their technique and output differ from the
previous cases [16, 21], as does their toolkit. At least
during the last decade, several Yacya potters have been
going to Acopalca to practice their craft. Usually they
are hired when demand rises during the preparations
before the main local festivity (23 September), a
strategic circumstance for interchange during the dry
season. Peonage (intra-communal labour exchange)
has been documented among potters in several villages
in the NPA, but in this particular context the potters are
actually moving outside their own community to work
(see other cases in Druc 2001, 165).
An example serves to illustrate and connect these
observations: on September (2005) Maura Yauri was
interested in producing pots to barter for products as
well as to sell for cash. So she and her relatives (father
and husband) collected and processed the raw
materials, prepared a working area, and hired potters to
work for her. It is rare for a potter to praise the
products of another, and even more so those of an
outsider, so why did she hire them? ‘They are faster’,
answered Mrs. Yauri. Among the expected potters, the
first to arrive was Felicita Rojas who makes a dozen
vessels a day, four more than the average in Acopalca.
Maura and her family are responsible for hosting and
feeding her, but Felicita must manufacture the pots
with her own tools (although sometimes potter’s plates
are borrowed/shared). The final decorative details are
in the hands of Mrs. Yauri and her daughters. In
Acopalca the host goes a step beyond those from
Huanchacbamba (case {2b}): from distribution to the
final step of manufacture, the decoration. At that
moment, it is established the functional difference
 a b
c d
Figure 10: Case {3}. A swallow in action (from top to bottom, left-right). F. Rojas arrives in Acopalca [22], her destination village, and works with
the technical style of her home village, Yacya [23]. Later on, M. Yauri, the host, intervenes helping Felicita to decorate the pots. Ultimately, the pots
received the external style from Acopalca, but were manufactured with the technical style from Yacya. The vessel in the final image is a cashkimanka
(pictures by J.L. Pino).
between the most common form produced, the pot:
those that will be used to cook meals with salt
[cashkimanca] and those without [apimanca]. The
former are decorated, the latter are not. The output
depends on the technical style of Mrs Rojas, but on the
external style of Mrs Yauri (Figure 10).
The causes of this displacement of production can be
explained on two levels. First, Acopalca is situated
close to the main road, created around two decades
ago, and therefore to a series of villages where pots are
highly appreciated and used. Its location makes
Acopalca a de facto distribution centre, and people
from other villages go there for pots throughout the
year since locals store finished vessels for future
exchange. Thus, in relation with Yacya, during the last
decades, Acopalca has become a sort of intermediary
village. Meanwhile, Yacya –by current transport
standards- is fairly isolated. Felicita Rojas is only one
of several local potters who have been working in
different communities within Huari (including [22-4]).
Second, the link between the two communities lasts
because benefits both parties. For the Acopalca
middle-woman (M. Yauri) Felicita is more effective:
she makes pots of good quality, faster, and hence,
cheaper, since Maura pays for the day. On the other
hand the artisan has better working conditions in
Acopalca than at her home-community: she is paid
more and in cash.
166
Outside Acopalca-Yacya, few similar cases have been
recorded, but they are illustrative. For instance, one
decade ago, Ana Araucano (Cachipampa, lower Casma
valley, Ancash) described swallow potters arriving to
her village: ‘They produced here. Those from
Cajamarca in their own style, those from Huaraz in the
style from here or in their own one, too’ (in Druc 1996,
34, emphasis added). According to this testimony,
three different styles were available at the same
village, but while in two cases (Cajamarca and Huaraz)
it alludes to technical styles in the third one (‘from
here’) it can be easily assumed as the external style
since there were no local potters in Cachipampa. In the
archaeological record this type of case seems to be
fairly common.
The Acopalca-Yacya case shows that the host
community determines the external style, while the
visiting artisans apply the internal one. If there is no
new training, as suggested long ago by Foster (1948,
367-9), the potter will maintain his/her own internal
style while the external can be modified more easily.
Social interaction (therefore identity) can only be
understood by first defining both types of style in each
object. After having narrowed our focus (cases {1, 2,
3}) searching for specific traces of the swallow potters,
now it is necessary to widen it again to approach
diachronic change (cases {4, 5}) to have a better
perspective of the effects of itinerancy in production.
Settled swallows {4}. One of the most renowned
techniques of the Central Andes is the paddle (wood)
and anvil (stone) from the extreme northern Peruvian
coast (Bankes 1985, Camino 1982). One specific
source of distribution of this technique (paddle and
anvil) has been itinerancy. At least since the late 19th
century, swallows have been circulating through the
Sechura desert and its outskirts. These artisans were
from Simbilá (Piura) [5] and for a few months a year
they worked in other areas with their tools and with
either local clay or clay from their hometown,
interchanging their vessels where they were made.
Considering the scale of production (i.e. groups of
people working simultaneously in the same workshop,
separated from the household of the workers) and the
preferred output (big containers of liquid), this is our
closest example to the vendemaroi, the swallows from
Thrapsano (Crete) (Voyatzoglou 1974). The swallows
from Simbilá and its surroundings used to return home
at the end of the dry season, as happened in the
villages of Cruz Pampa, Morropón, Querecotillo
(Sullana), Sullana and Tambo Grande (Sabogal
1982:I,54-6; Camino 1982,95). Occasionally they
stayed, permanently, in the visited hamlets, as
happened with potters in La Bocana (Morropón), La
Encantada (Chulucanas), La Huaca (Paita), La Legua
(Catacaos) and La Unión (Chulucanas) (Sabogal 1982:
I, 58-0, 63-7, 62-3, 56-8; 1987, 26-30; Camino 1982,
95-6) (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Case {4}. Settled swallows in the Sechura area. Some of
their destination villages were places where they remained
permanently, some trips were only seasonal.
The oldest documented case of this type is from Olmos
(Lambayeque). In 1889, Brüning (1898) interviewed a
settled swallow born in Catacaos and working in
Olmos. The anonymous potter used Simbilá’s tools
and technique. He was not alone, for more than a
century, Olmos [6] has been a regular destination for
swallows (on this case see Ramón 2008b, 484-5).
Nowadays, several local potters have been observed in
the area. Olmos’ potters share the technical style with
Simbilá, with a slightly different formal repertoire
167
attributable to absence of permanent contacts and
different distribution contexts (Sabogal 1978; 1982).
Forms like the colonial lebrillo [big basin for washing
clothes or feet] were reported, for the last time, in
Simbilá two decades ago, but they are still produced in
Olmos. Settled swallows are not restricted to the far
north. In Yungay (Ancash), Daniel Márquez learned
the craft from his Taricá [26] colleagues [Yungay is
30km N], who came to work (as swallows) and ‘After,
the masters [maestros] remained here’ (Druc 1996,
34).
A flock within a flow {5}. This case is an extension of
the previous ones, and should be understood as a
combination of the highland and coastal swallows
already described. Throughout the last century, men
from the highlands have been walking down to work at
the big coastal haciendas during the harvest. The most
renowned system to collect these workers during the
late 19th century was called enganche [from Spanish
gancho: hook]. Historically, enganche was
immediately prior to the system later named swallow
(seasonal agricultural labourers) and generalized since
the 1930s (Burga 1976, 241, 244, 245; Klaren 1973,
27-31). They differ in their recruiting strategies: the
former alludes to men being hooked, since the
enganchados usually need to serve a contract already
signed in their home-towns, while the swallows
returned yearly to the haciendas to offer their working
force: ‘people just arrived’. Both types of workers
have had a similar route: highland-coast.
Enganche was widespread in Perú, and it is well
documented for the area between the north of La
Libertad and the immediate highlands of Cajamarca
(Castro Pozo 1924, 101-2). Precisely in that transect,
the most renowned case of swallow potters was
identified. Apparently they were a subset within the
massive flocks of seasonal migrants (including
enganchados) going down to work in the harvesting at
the coastal haciendas. These artisans were from the
hamlet of Mangallpa, San Pablo (Cajamarca) and used
to arrive seasonally with their tools and raw materials
(Espejo 1951; Sabogal 1987; Villegas 1978). Swallows
from Cajamarca have been observed in Santiago de
Chuco, where they arrived with their own raw material
to work there, especially for the festival of the patron
saint (25 July) (Ireno Aguilar, Caulimalca [10]). More
recently a person from Chilipamapa, a village close to
Mangallpa, has described them in detail: ‘The
mangallpans bring their earth [tierra] and their clay
[mito] on their donkey to the provinces, to the coast, to
Cajamarca, to San Marcos. They ask for shelter in
those places and work there in groups of five or six
persons, once they finish with the big vessel
[payanca], the pots [ollas] and the pitchers [cántaros],
they fire them, and immediately they sell or exchange
them with grains or some animals. Then they return to
the place where they did the firing and with a lot of
people, sometimes, the mangallpans drink with the
customer’ (José Ayay, in Biblioteca Campesina 1994,
97). On the coast they would mainly work in villages
at the northern extreme of La Libertad (Ascope,
Chepén, Guadalupe, Jequetepeque, Paiján, Pacasmayo,
San Pedro de Lloc) and neighbouring places. Some of
these artisans remained on the coast, but most of them
returned home. Guadalupe (75km W from Mangallpa)
was especially known as a swallow target. During the
last century Guadalupe had a high production of rice
and the potters used to arrive to its huge annual fair at
the end of the year (27 November-10 December),
producing and exchanging their items locally (Sabogal
et al., 1974-5: I, 66-7) (Figure 12).
Before the general discussion, I will conclude this
section with the potters of the puna.
Figure 12: Case {5}. A flock within a flow. Some of the destination
villages of the potters from Mangallpa.
Herders potters {6}. The earliest case of this type was
found at the upper strata of Pachamachay (4300m,
76°11’6”W, 11°6’40”S) in the department of Junín,
close to the homonymous lagoon at the border with
Cerro de Pasco. According to the archaeological
evidence (numerous ceramic clay mixing bowls, firing
traces, high densities of ceramic fragments) between
200 BC-AD 200 this cave was identified as a pottery
production context. The earliest sherds found are older
(1600 BC) but the manufacturing context coincides
with the period when herding replaced hunter-
gathering as the main subsistence activity (Rick 1980,
265, 294, 325).
The modern counterpart comes from the same area,
from the other side of Junín lagoon (Cerro de Pasco). It
was recorded at the beginning of the century by an
engineer (Godet 1918) who was working in the mine
nearby and stayed in the area for eight months visiting
the female potters who worked in huts in the environs
of the Huarón lagoon (San José de Huaillay). These
llama herders lived between 4500-5000m and travelled
several months each year within their own ecological
level (puna) searching for fodder. Men wove mainly
during the rainy season (November-April) or while
their llamas rested. During the dry season women
collected clay from the lakeside and the mountain
slopes. In July (the peak of the highland summer) they
made pots intensively outside their huts. The following
May the men decorated their llamas and loaded them
with pots and other items travelling to the montaña, a
lower and warmer level, to the east where they
bartered their products (Figure 13).
168
Figure 13: Case {6}. Production and distribution schedule of the puna
potters.
They returned in June with maize, potatoes, fruits and
some legumes. Before Godet, Raimondi (1873, 234)
observed the same people bartering their pots for maize
in Cajatambo (Lima) (see also Censo General 1878: V,
477). These artisans, also known as llacuaz potters, are
at the extreme of our definition: they present regular
mobility of the production place, and also the
household (on the definition of llacuaz, see Duviols
1973). Both the location where they live (puna), as
well as their main activity (herding), represents an
alternative to normal ceramic studies (cf. Arnold 1985,
109-26).
According to later testimonies, the llacuaz potters were
going to the quechua, with their flocks, and later in
trucks, between July-October, the optimal time for
obtaining maize and other grains. They carried pots,
woollen blankets and, occasionally, small fish and dry-
grass fuel for bartering with potatoes, maize, wheat,
broad beans, and related items at the area of Canta
(Lima), San Rafael and Chaupiwaranga (both
Huánuco), and even to some upper reaches of coastal
valleys (Farfán 1949, 126-30; Fonseca 1972, 331-2,
336-7; 1973, 122-5; Tschopik 1947, 52-4). The
production of the Huaillay potters was widely
distributed around Huánuco city’s hinterland, where
they were identified as the llacuaz or shucuyes
[shucuy, fur sandal, their typical footwear] (Morales
1994, 43-44). The Huaillayans were so well known in
the Central Andes that they even appear in a tale from
Pampas, Chancay (Lima) arriving with their llamas
carrying pots and woollen blankets (Osterling 1984,
271-5).
Archaeological research carried out in the 1970s at the
headwaters of the Huaura River (highlands of NE
Lima, near Cerro de Pasco and Junín) showed a
significant recurrent anomaly: among the well
established ceramic assemblages of the Late Horizon
(Inca and the later part of the local Cayash tradition),
vessels of other styles were found in various places.7
At that time, the same type of clay vessel (light brown
paste, irregular surface, strongly modelled lips, sharply
painted with irregular stripes in dark-red or violet-red)
found in archaeological places was still used in some
Cayash’s hamlets. The locals said that it ‘comes from
llacuaz’ (i.e. from the puna) (Krzanowski and Tuna
1986, 170-4). The archaeologists related it with the
7
For the Andes, I follow the chronological system proposed by Rowe
1962. The Late Horizon corresponds, roughly, to the late fifteen and
early sixteen century.
village with potters of Huarón (Cerro de Pasco). They
pointed out the unique features of these artisans
(herder potters) in the Central Andes, and they
observed the abundance of similar ceramic fragments
in the archaeological collections and especially in the
funerary chambers. The Huaillay potters are not unique
in the Andes. Similar cases have been observed in the
Southern Andes. Among them, the puna potters from
Cotabambas, department of Apurimac, combine
perfectly the described features: they live in an area
devoted to pastoralism, and each summer go down to
the communities at the quechua level to make pots
{6a} (Valderrama and Escalante 1992, 230).8 The puna
potters from Huaillay have been supplying vast areas
(in four departments) since, at least, the 1870s
(ethnographic evidence) or more (archaeological
evidence).
Several ethnic groups have been using their ceramic
output. The scarcity of this kind of evidence is not
only related with the difficulty in accessing these
remote places, but basically with old assumed
essentialisms (i.e. that pottery is not made by herders).
Discussion: swallowed material correlates
The previous cases are centred on the ethnographic
present, so, before concluding, it is opportune to think
about the kind of evidence that could be expected
when dealing with archaeological contexts. Beyond
exceptional cases, such as those recorded by
Krzanowski and Tuna (1986) (case {6}), domestic
vessels as those presented here, have rarely been used
to establish links among non-immediate pre-colonial
communities. I will discuss three examples, related to
our cases that can help to trace interaction in the
production process in the light of the two elements
used here (technical style and itinerant production).
a) Our first example is related with the cluster (case
{1}). Unlike to potters as those from Kent under the
Roman Empire (Pollard 1982, 190-1), Francisco Flores
does not use a mark or stamp to identify his products.
This is a feature shared by the potters in rural areas of
the NPA: the maker of the vessels can be certainly
identified through his work within the community
where pots are made, but outside the community,
people can not identify the potter: they mostly refer to
the style used the members of that community. What
happened with the archaeological evidence? Two cases
from the Moche society, Early Intermediate Period, are
illustrative. First, using ethnographic analogy based on
itinerant potters of Ancash, it has been suggested that
marks on archaeological cooking and storage ollas
from the Santa valley (Ancash) were used to
distinguish individual products when potters from
different economic units were firing together (Donnan
1971; 1973, 93-5). Second, using a historical analogy
8
Female potters of the same type were observed in the Coropuna, above
4300m (Arequipa) (Bingham 1915, 257, and pictures between 260-1).
In the city of Chucuito (Puno) Tschopik (1950, 209) interviewed a
potter who was actually from a community in the high puna, where
thirty other male colleagues were working. Nota bene: as mentioned
above, there are several cases of herders that were peddlers of pottery,
but they do not belong to our category.
169
it was suggested that massive Moche buildings, as the
huaca del Sol and huaca de la Luna, were made under
a collaborative system (mita), and the marks in the
adobes were signalling what work party was making
them (Hastings and Moseley 1975; Moseley 1975). In
both cases, pots and mud bricks, there is an agreement
between marks and identity, familiar and communal,
respectively. What is lacking is information about the
second term of the relation: the place of origin of the
makers.
Considering the discussed evidence, the technical style
seems like a middle point between the personal marks
of the potters from Kent and the communal
identification marks in Andean objects: manufacturing
techniques give a sense of place. As with his
highlander colleagues that visited lowland places,
Francisco Flores does not sign his pots, but he always
uses the same toolkit, that becomes his stylistic
signature. People within a region usually recognize
where vessels with different technical styles come
from (Ramón 2008a). Potters’ plates are generalized in
the southern highlands of Peru (between Puno and
Lima), but they are absent in the ethnographic record
of the north coast and almost non-existent in the
archaeological record of the same area (Mohr 1984,
166-7; Ravines 1978, 406). In this regard the potter’s
plate can be considered a diagnostic artefact for the
southern area. In Ancash, at the southern extreme of
the NPA, the situation is particularly significant: no
potters have been identified in the ethnographic record
for the coast, but the highland potters use a unique
combination of small potter’s plates with a thin paddle.
What is the available archaeological evidence of
pottery production on the coast of Ancash and in its
surroundings?
First, seven plates were identified at the collection of
the Larco Museum (Lima). They have formal affinity
with the tools of the highland potters, but are twice as
thick. They were attributed to the Early Horizon and
were apparently found in Tomabal (Virú) and Santa
Rosa (Chicama) some kilometres north of the Ancash
coast, in the department of La Libertad, but the
location is unclear, and the artefacts have never been
studied.9 Second, two potter’s plates at the Tres Marías
site (lower Nepeña valley) were identified as Recuay
style, Early Intermediate Period. Since the core of this
style has been located in the highlands of Ancash, the
presence of these tools (attributed to Recuay)
strengthens my suggestions: highland artisans working
in the coast. Nevertheless, the reasons for that
attribution (Recuay’s tools) are vague (Proulx 1973,
38, 238; 1982). Third, recent excavations at
Huambacho, in the lower Nepeña valley revealed a
female funerary context from the Early Intermediate
Period (Tomb 6, Huaca A) including a potter’s plate
similar to those from the Larco Museum (Chicoine and
9
Available at www.catalogomuseolarco.perucultural. org.pe. Codes:
ML016903, -4,-5,-6 [Tomabal, Virú], ML016907, -8,-9 [Santa Ana,
Chicama]. Two of them include incised designs like those used
nowadays to identify the owner of the plate. All the pieces were studied
in situ, thanks to the personnel of the museum.
Navarro 2005, figs.14, 15). Two alternatives may
explain this: the coastal artisans used the potter’s plate
during that period, or, these were tools from the
highland artisans working on the coast. Considering
the evidence here presented, we assumed the latter.
Ideally a comparison between the vessels associated to
the tools (to identify their manufacture technique) and
their raw materials will provide a more complete
answer to the question opened by this array of tools.
Moreover, the regular use of coastal areas by highlands
artisans is not restricted to Ancash, or the NPA.
Further south, in the Lurín valley (Lima) a similar
discussion between pottery techniques and the uses of
space has been developed during the last decade. The
potters of the highlands (Santo Domingo de los
Olleros, Huarochirí) use tools morphologically similar
to those found in coastal archaeological context
(Ramón 1999, 222, 242).
b) Tools as those found in the previous example are
not so frequent in the archaeological record, but
instead pots with blended styles are fairly common.
They appear when previously defined stylistic units
(i.e. the group of features used to classify an object as
typical from a specific area and period) do not fit with
the object under study. For instance, when a vessel
from Moche or Inca styles shows attributes (e.g.
morphometry, colours, decoration) out of the canon.
Or, when an object is ‘out of place’, as the bottle with
stirrup spout (attributed to Chimú, a northern coastal
style) found in an Inca context, Machu Picchu, at the
southern highlands. Since it is the best known, and
most widespread of all, the Inca imperial style has
received names according to the area/period/style that
is combined with (Ica-Inca, Chimú-Inca, Inca-
colonial). These mixtures of the Late Horizon, with
historical documentation to compare with, have been
the model for earlier combinations, as Moche-Huari of
the Middle Horizon. Studies of this kind of interface
have been specially refined for the Ica area and used as
chronological, cultural and political markers (Menzel
1976). After a hiatus, this type of approach has
reappeared, but now it mainly focuses on iconography
and rarely on the whole object. For instance, the rich
discussion about the Moche case severs iconography
from the other features of the vessel, like morphology
and/or the manufacture technique used to make it.
Vessels with ‘mixed style’ are crucial for discussing
the intricacies of cultural interaction using concrete
vessels, therefore any type of borders. It is precisely
after applying the label to the object that the
interpretative questions can be raised, e.g. how was
this combination generated? As far as I know, itinerant
producers have never been considered an option, and
the ideal units of culture history are still assumed as
close entities. Examples like Acopalca-Yacya and
Cachipampa (case {3}) show that swallows are an
option to consider, forcing us to submit the objects to
the elemental questionnaire related to the operational
sequence: objects need to be conceived as dynamic
clusters of activities that can take place at different
locations.
170
c) Our third example (case {5}) is related with
evidence from the Late Horizon. As aforesaid, the
highland potters from Mangallpa (Cajamarca) went to
the coast as part of a wider migratory stream, which
can be traced at least for one century, but what about
before? Interpretations that have proposed historical
links between systems as enganche and previous
massive forced migrations of labour force, as those by
the Inca state (mitmaqkuna) have been reasonably
criticized: analogy is not homology. Notwithstanding,
two details must be mentioned. First, how was the
need for a massive labour force satisfied during
harvesting time before the enganche? In early colonial
times, the human circulation between the highlands
and the north coast was regular, as the warnings of the
colonial authorities show (González de Cuenca [1566],
139). Later on, the colonial mita used highlanders to
work in the coastal places. Second, it was precisely in
the opposite direction of the trajectory described here
(Cajamarca→ North Coast) that during the Inca regime
one pachaca [around 100] of artisans was displaced
(Espinoza 1970). These mitmaqkuna were following a
route already used for other peasants who were going
to the highlands on a seasonal base (mit’ayoc), as in
other case Incas were only expanding a form of
mobility that was already in use. Regarding the brief
span of the empire impact and the massive scale of
some of its enterprises (as the mitmaqkuna) pottery
techniques, and not only decoration, can be used as a
complementary way to trace demographic movements.
For instance, to evaluate the Inca impact it will be
illustrative to know if the mobilized coastal artisans of
Collique kept their own technical style or adopted a
new one. Local differences are more revealing to
understand the dynamics of the Tawantinsuyu than the
insistence on its normative features, and pottery
techniques seem to be relevant reconstruct the Inca
political mosaic. In our case, the potters from
Mangallpa use the paddle and (stone) anvil
combination to make their pots, which is rare among
highland potters outside Cajamarca, but widespread in
the extreme north coast [5,6,7]. As in the previous
case, manufacturing techniques can provide an
alternative sense of place, than the one suggested by
the decorative style.
Here we must recall that despite their differences,
enganchados, swallows and mitmaqkuna belong to a
recurrent pattern, which could have been functioning
for a longer period. Early colonial dictionaries
translated mitmac as aduenedizo (Anonymous [1586],
61) that is forastero [Diccionario de Autoridades
1726-39], someone that arrives from a community to
stay in a different one, for a period sufficient to affect
local life, and to leave material traces.10
10
An archaeologist with long experience in the Andes observed:
‘Paradoxically, during the years that I was participating in the
construction of homogeneous and continuous Andean culture, I was
witnessing heterogeneity and change in the Andes all around me. From
my archaeological workmen at Huari (1973-1981) I learned that
migration was essential for most peasant households- usually periodic
trips to the coast to work on big plantations for wages’ (Isbell 1997, 24).

Closing remarks
Swallows ‘appeared’ during the course of extensive
fieldwork towards creating an inventory of pottery
techniques in the NPA. But, actually, they were already
present in the first ethnographic report on ceramic
production in the Andes (Brüning 1898). Similar
evidence was also presented in reports like those of
Linné (1925) and Nicklin (1979), but swallows have
almost vanished in more recent generalizations
(Arnold 1985). The growing number of cases that we
found in the field, and in the literature, alerted us of
the limitations of our questionnaire (method) but also
about our assumptions related to the location of pottery
production in the past (theory). More broadly, it is not
accidental that only when the methodology of
anthropological research changed in the Andes, from
studying isolated villages to complete regions,
swallows reappeared in the ethnographic reports on
pottery (compare Arnold 1993 with Sillar 2000).
Notwithstanding, itinerant production has rarely been
incorporated into the analysis or conclusions of the
production of pottery or any other material item in the
Andes. In the previous pages a category identified in
the ethnographic record was defined, and at the same
time the traces useful for identifying these kinds of
potters were suggested. It can be observed that our
examples are only the result of recent changes in the
transport system (e.g. access to cars or buses), which
certainly has increased the mobility observed in case
{1}, or that they are one of the many consequences of
the fall of the hacienda system. However, I suspect that
we are not dealing with an incidental phenomenon. To
this end, three final observations are necessary.
First. When referring to the swallows from Mangallpa,
Villegas (1978) defined their action sphere as
extending from Tumbes to Chimbote (the entire north
coast of Perú), and also the Amazonian area at the east
of the Marañón basin. In the absence of additional
evidence, we must be conservative about the impact of
the Mangallpa case. However, considering the
evidence discussed above, the presence of swallow
potters in the NPA can be assumed as normal, and even
ubiquitous in the ethnographic record. Hence, why not
consider their theoretical presence in the
archaeological context? (other cases of Andean
swallows in Figure 14).
Second. Itinerant potters are a kind of seasonal migrant
within the Andes. This type of demographic movement
has been overshadowed by the studies on migration to
the coast (westward) or to the lowlands in the montaña
(eastward). Dealing with the community of
Uchucmarca (Bolívar, La Libertad), Brush (1980)
showed that inter-communal migration can be
considered as part of the regional economy or the
energy flow system, similar to trade networks. Brush
argues that these migrants are invisible since their
displacement does not demand changes in language,
As a consequence, Isbell considered seasonal migration as a possible
model for Huari, Middle Horizon, cultural influences on the coast.
171
dress, or cultural background: apparently they leave no
traces. Expending the Uchumarca case, it was observed
that in the community of Pacariqtambo (Cuzco) the
flux of people has not been occasional but that is
actually within the structure of the Andean community,
(Urton 1991), at least since colonial times. Nowadays
Pacariqtambo’s people are divided in ayllus
originarios [locals], qatay [included stranger] and
mozada [stranger ayllu]. During colonial times, there
were three similar categories: originarios con tierrras
[natives with land], forasteros con tierras [foreigners
with land] and forasteros sin tierra [foreigners without
land]. Challenging the standard definition of an ayllu
as ‘any [lineage] group with a head’ Urton (1991, 803)
proposed an alternative: the community and the ayllu
have been shaped by the consuetudinary incorporation
of outsiders, the ‘included stranger’. Archaeological
material and historical evidence have suggested this
kind of permanent presence for pre-colonial times, and
it seems that the ethnographic evidence will help to
raise its visibility.
The evidence for swallows during the early colonial
period is rare. However, some of the testimonies
already presented have guided our search. A potential
case comes from the Northern Coast in Collique,
nearby the department of Lambayeque in the 1560s,
during the administrative inspection [visita] of
González de Cuenca. The colonial authorities gave
permission to a potter named Toy and his colleagues to
continue with their activities. These potters were
allowed to ‘travel to other places to use their craft,
and to bring or sell their products’.11 The reference
suggests that they were not only selling pots, but
moving to work in the nearby areas, just like the
potters from the Simbilá ambit (case {4}).
Third. In general the previous examples question the
academic myth of the traditional community as a
closed entity. In a regional study on the relations
between the village and the outside world in 16th
century Castile (Spain), which includes a section on
itinerant rural craftsmen and artisans, Vassberg (1996,
175) observed: ‘We should avoid explaining migration
as a reaction to economic difficulty or other problems,
and instead we should think of it as a basic and
essential component of the socioeconomic structure’.
This ‘culture of mobility’ has been also recognized as
a typical feature of Andean populations (Monge
[1948]: vii, 74-5, passim). In this context, the swallow
potters are especially significant because they leave
material traces of difference, literally, they can be
followed through their products. Therefore, swallows
can contribute to redefining the concept of community
in the pre-colonial Andes. Hereafter swallows must be
permanent question when examining objects in the
fossil record.
11
The original document is explicit: ‘...dio licencia al dicho indios Toy
e a los demás indios olleros aquí declarados para que libremente puedan
ir o vayan a cualesquier repartimientos a usar sus oficios y lleuar o
vender las obras dél...’ in Espinoza 1987:I, 21; emphasis added.
 home village destination village/area details source
Quillacinga Two/three months travelling, with D. Castellanos, pers.
(Nariño, S Colombia) their clay, producing along the comm.
way
Sacsamarca Santa Ana village, 1 day walking C. Huallpa,
(Huancasancos, Ayacucho), quechua Huanacopampa,
quechua level Ayacucho, puna
puna community quechua communities from May to September Valderrama and
(Cotabambas, Apurímac) Escalante 1992:229-30
highland communities warm valleys in August Sillar 2000:91
(Grau, Apurímac)
ayllu Macha ayllu Laymi (Potosí) clay from Macha; transported by Browman 1990:413
(Potosí, Bolivia, E. of lake llamas
Poopo)
Pumpuri (Potosí, Bolivia), Lyncha 2700m clay from Pumpuri to Lyncha; they
3850m go to Cantacanta to make big
Cantacanta 3500- vessels; from May to October Sillar 2000:28-9, 91-
4000m 3, 98, 174-7
Tica Tica (Potosí, Bolivia), Lyncha 2700m 5 days walking
3650m

Figure 14: Other places with swallow potters in the Andes (besides the NPA). Information presented from North to South.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Browman, D. 1990. High altitude camelid pastoralism in

This research was funded by the Robert Sainsbury
Fellowship. All maps by Martha Bell.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
Gabriel Ramón Joffre
British Museum, AOA
Great Russell Street, London WC 1B 3DG
gabrielramonjoffre@gmail.com
REFERENCES
Anonymous [1586] 1951. Vocabulario y Phrasis en la
Lengua General de los Indios del Perú, llamado
Quichua. Lima, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos.
Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
the Andes: llama caravan fleteros, and their importance in
production and distribution, in J. Galaty and D. Johnson
(eds.), The World of Pastoralism: Herding Systems in
Comparative Perspective, 323-352. New York, Guilford.
Brüning, H. 1898. Moderne Töpferei der Indianer Perus.
Globus 74, 259-260.
Brush, S. 1980. Peru's Invisible migrants: a case study of
InterAndean Migration, in B. Orlove and G. Custred
(eds.), Land and Power in Latin America: Agrarian
Economy and Social Processes in the Andes, 211-228.
New York, Holmes and Meier.
Burga, M. 1976. De la encomienda a la hacienda
capitalista: el valle de Jequetepeque del siglo XVI al XX.
Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Arnold, D. 1993. Ecology and ceramic production in an
Andean Community. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Asboe, W. 1946. Pottery in Ladakh, Western Tibet. Man
46, 9-10.
Bankes, G. 1985. The manufacture and circulation of
paddle and anvil pottery on the north coast of Peru. World
Archaeology 17, 269-277.
Biblioteca Campesina. 1994. Barro bendito. La alfarería
en la tradición cajamarquina. Nosotros Los
Cajamarquinos. Cajamarca, Asociación para el
Desarrollo Rural de Cajamarca.
Bingham, H. 1915. Types of Machu Picchu Pottery.
American Anthropologist 17, 257-271.
Camino, L. 1982. Los que vencieron al tiempo. Simbilá,
Costa Norte. Piura, Centro de Investigación y Promoción
del Campesinado.
Castro Pozo, H. 1924. Nuestra Comunidad Indígena.
Lima, El Lucero.
Censo General. 1878. Censo General de la República del
Perú formado en 1876. Lima: Imp. del Teatro.
Chicoine, D. and Navarro, J. 2005. Arquitectura,
complejidad sociopolítica y variabilidad cultural en
Huambacho, un sitio del Horizonte temprano del valle
bajo del Nepeña. Report for the Instituto Nacional de
Cultura, Lima.
Cremonte, M. 1984. Alfareros itinerantes de Los
Colorados (Dto. Tafi, Tucumán). Aproximaciones a un
estudio de etnografía arqueológica. Runa 14, 247-261.

172
Diccionario de Autoridades. [1726-39] 1990. Madrid,
Gredos.
Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. 1989. Tich matek: The
Technology of Luo Pottery Production and the Definition
of Ceramic Style. World Archaeology 21, 148-164.
Donnan, C. 1971. Ancient Peruvian potters’marks and
their interpretation through ethnographic analogy.
American Antiquity 36, 460-466.
Donnan, C. 1973. Moche Occupation of the Santa
Valley, Peru. Los Angeles, University of California.
Druc, I. 1996. De la etnografía hacia la arqueología:
aporte de entrevistas con ceramistas de Ancash (Perú)
para la caracterización de la cerámica prehispánica.
Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 25, 17-
41.
Druc, I. 2001. ¿Shashal o no shashal? esa es la cuestión.
Etnoarqueología cerámica en la zona de Huari, Ancash.
Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 30, 157-
173.
Duviols, P. 1973. Huari y Llacuaz: agricultores y
pastores. Un dualismo prehispánico de oposición y
complementariedad. Revista del Museo Nacional 39, 153-
189.
Espejo, J. 1951. Los alfareros de Manka-Allpa,
Comercio, 1 December, Lima.
Espinoza, W. 1970. Los mitmas yungas de Collique en
Cajamarca, siglo XV, XVI y XVII. Revista del Museo
Nacional 36, 9-57.
Espinoza, W. 1987. Artesanos, transacciones, monedas y
formas de pago en el mundo andino. Siglos XV y XVI.
Lima, Banco Central de Reserva.
Farfán, J. 1949. Colección de textos quechuas del Perú
Central [Primera parte]. Revista del Museo Nacional 18,
121-166.
Flores, J. 1977. Pastoreo, tejido e intercambio, in J. Flores
(ed.), Pastores de puna, 133-154. Lima, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
Fonseca, C. 1973. Sistemas económicos andinos.
Biblioteca Andina. Lima, Seminario de Historia Rural
Andina.
Fonseca, C., Arquinio, J. and Gamarra, A. 1967.
Situación actual de las comunidades de Catac, Mita,
Huata y Tumpa: Callejón de Huaylas, Ancash. Vol.2.
Lima, Instituto Indigenista Peruano.
Foster, G. 1948. Some implications of modern Mexican
mold-made pottery. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 4, 356-370.
Godet, E. 1918. Monographie de la région de
Huancavelica (Département de Junín) Pérou. Bulletin de
la Societe Neuchateloise de Geographie 27, 121-812.
González de Cuenca, G. [1566] 1975. Ordenanças de los
Yndios, Historia y Cultura 9, 126-154 [edited by
M.Rostworowski].
Gosselain, O. 2000. Materializing Identities: An African
Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 7, 187-217.
Guaman Poma, F. [1615] 1980. Nueva corónica y buen
gobierno. México, Siglo Veintiuno.
Hastings, C. and Moseley, M. 1975. The adobes of Huaca
del Sol and Huaca de la Luna. American Antiquity 40,
196-203.
Ionas, I. 2000. Traditional Pottery and Potters in Cyprus.
Aldershot, Ashgate.
Isbell, W. 1997. Mummies and Mortuary Monuments. A
Postprocessual Prehistory of Central Andean Social
Organization. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Klaren, P. 1973. Modernization, Dislocation and
Aprismo. Origins of the Peruvian Aprista Party, 1870-
1932. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Krzanowski, A. and Tuna, K. 1986. Cerámica de la
El región Cayash, in A. Krzanowski (ed.), Cayash
prehispánico: primera parte del informe sobre las
investigaciones arqueológicas de la Expedición
Científica Polaca a los Andes: Proyecto Huaura-
Checras, Perú, 1978, vol.1, 50-186. Krakow, Polska
Academia Nauk.
Linné, S. 1925. The Technique of South American
Ceramics. Göteborg, Elanders Boktryckeri aktiebolag.
London, G. 1989. On Fig Leaves, Itinerant Potters and
Pottery Production Locations in Cyprus, in P. McGovern
and M. Notis (eds.), Cross-craft and Cross-cultural
interactions in ceramics: Ceramics and Civilization, vol.
4, 65-80. Westerville, The American Ceramic Society.
Márquez, S. 1965. Huari y Conchucos. Lima, El Cóndor.
Menzel, D. 1976. Pottery Style and Society in Ancient
Peru. Art as a Mirror of History in the Ica Valley, 1350-
1570. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Miller, C. 1964. Los Golondrinos. Kroeber
Anthropological Society Papers 30, 51-71.
Mohr, K. 1984. Traditional pottery of Raqch'i, Cuzco,
Perú: a preliminary study of its production, distribution
and consumption. Ñawpa Pacha 22-23, 161-210.
Mohr, K. 1992.The organisation of production and
distribution of traditional pottery in South Highland Peru,
173
in G. Bey and C. Pool (eds.), Ceramic production and
distribution: an integrated approach, 49-92. Boulder,
Westivied Press.
Monge, C. [1948] 1973. Aclimatization in the Andes.
Baltimore, John Hopkins Press.
Morales, D. 1994. Los alfareros de Huánuco. Lima,
Asociación Peruana de Arqueología.
Moseley, M. 1975. Prehistoric principles of labor
organization in the Moche valley, Peru. American
Antiquity 40, 191-196.
Nicklin, K. 1979. The Location of Pottery Manufacture.
Man 14, 436-458.
Osterling, J. 1984. Recopilación de cuentos en relación
con lo sobrenatural en Pampas-La Florida.
Anthropologica 2, 271-304.
Peacock, D. 1982. Pottery in the Roman world: an
ethnoarchaeological approach. London, Longman.
Pollard, R. 1982. The Roman pottery of Kent. Maidstone,
Kent Archaeological Society.
Proulx, D. 1973. Archaeological investigations in the
Nepeña Valley, Peru. Vol. 13. Research report.
Amherst, University of Massachusetts.
Proulx, D. 1982. Territoriality in the Early Intermediate
Period: The Case of Moche and Recuay. Ñawpa Pacha
20, 83-96.
Raimondi, A. 1873. El departamento de Ancachs y sus
riquezas minerales. Lima, El Nacional.
Ramón, G. 1999. Producción alfarera en Santo Domingo
de los Olleros (Huarochirí-Lima). Bulletin de l'Institut
Francais d’Etudes Andines 28, 215-248.
Ramón, G. 2008a. Potters of the Northern Peruvian
Andes: a palimpsest of technical styles in motion.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.
Ramón, G. 2008b Producción alfarera en Piura (Perú):
estilos técnicos y diacronía. Bulletin de l’Institut
Francais d’Etudes Andines 37, 477-509.
Ravines, R. 1978. [Preface] Alfarería, in R. Ravines
(ed.), Tecnología Andina, 401-406. Lima, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
Ravines, R. and Villiger, F. (eds.) 1989. La cerámica
tradicional del Perú. Lima, Los Pinos.
Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago,
University of Chicago.
Rick, J. 1980. Prehistoric hunters of the high Andes.
New York, Academic Press.
174
Rowe, J. 1962. Stages and Periods in Archaeological
Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
18, 40-54.
Rye, O. and Evans, C. 1976. Traditional Pottery
Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies.
Washington, Smithsonian Institution.
Sabogal, J. 1978. Siete sitios cerámicos en la región de
Piura. Lima, Ministerio de Trabajo/ Ministerio de
Industria.
Sabogal, J. 1982. La cerámica de Piura. Quito, Instituto
Americano de Arte Popular.
Sabogal, J. 1987. Cerámica yunga: estribación andino
piurana. Piura, Centro de Investigación y Promoción del
Campesinado.
Sabogal, J., Alvárez, T., Escobar, A., Vildosola, J., and
Morante, M. 1974-5. Estudio Socio-Económico del
ámbito cultural. Lima, Sinamos.
Sayers, R. and Rinzler, R. 1987. The Korean Onggi
potter. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Sillar, B. 2000. Making Pots and Constructing
Households: An Ethnoarcheological Study of Pottery
Production, Trade and Use in the Andes. Oxford,
British Archaeological Reports.
Simoons, F. 1960. Northwest Ethiopia. Peoples and
Economy. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.
Torres, B. 1976. El trueque o llanquipakuy. El
Comercio, 20 June, Lima.
Tschopik, H. 1947. Highland communities of Central
Peru: a regional survey. Washington, Smithsonian
Institution.
Tschopik, H. 1950. An Andean ceramic tradition in
historical perspective. American Antiquity 15, 196-218.
Urton, G. 1991. The stranger in Andean Communities,
in R. Thiercelin (ed.)? Cultures et societes Andes et
Meso-Amerique, vol. 2, 791-810. Provence, Université
de Provence.
Valderrama, R. and Escalante, C. 1983. Arrieros,
troperos y llameros en Huancavelica. Allpanchis 18, 65-
88.
Valderrama, R. and Escalante, C. 1992. Nosotros los
humanos. Cusco, Centro de Estudios Regionales
Andinos Bartolomé de las Casas.
Vassberg, D. 1996. The village and the outside world in
Golden Age Castille: mobility and migration in every
day rural life. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Villegas, A. 1978. Cerámica paleteada de Mangallpa,
Diario OJO, 20 March, Lima [in Ravines and Villiger
1989]

Voyatzoglou, M. 1974. The jar makers of Thrapsano in

Crete. Expedition 16, 18-24.

175