John Howland Rowe

Archaeological Explorations in Southern Peru, 1954–1955: Preliminary Report of the Fourth University of California Archaeological Expedition to Peru

From March, 1954, through the whole of the year 1955 the University of California at Berkeley sponsored a program of archaeological field work in southern Peru and related studies in museums of the United States. In Peru the expedition worked out of 2 bases, one at Cuzco in the highlands and the other at lea on the south coast. It was concerned primarily with archaeological survey and exploration, although excavations were also made at 2 Inca period sites in the coastal area studied. The expedition staff consisted of John H. Rowe, Director, Dorothy Menzel (Mrs. Francis A. Riddell), Francis A. Riddell, Dwight T. Wallace, Lawrence E. Dawson, and David A. Robinson.

Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area

Although a reliable relative chronology, based chiefly on the sequence of pottery types, is rapidly being built up for the Andean area, no method has so far been devised for turning the relative dates into absolute ones. As far as we know at present, no permanent method of dating, comparable to the Maya Long Count or even to the Mexican fifty-two-year cycle, was in use in any part of South America, and no one has yet investigated the possibility of building up a tree-ring sequence, even in the drier regions of Peru. Furthermore, the distances that separate the Andean area from the Maya area have so far prevented any correlation of the early pottery types of the two areas, so that we cannot even estimate the age of Peruvian remains in terms of the insecurely correlated Maya calendar.

STRATIGRAPHY AND SERIATION

Stratigraphic interpretation rests on two principles: the principle of superposition and the principle that deposition units can be identified by cultural content. The sequence of deposition units derived from a case of superposition may not give a true cultural sequence if mixing, filling, or collecting has affected the cultural contents of the units. There are two kinds of seriation: evolutionary serration, done on the basis of an assumed general law of cultural development, and similiary seriation, done on the basis of similarities and differences in objects or deposition units compared. Similiary seriation assumes only that cultural change is normally gradual. Of the two kinds of seriation, only similiary seriation can give credible results. Some evidence of archaeological associations is necessary to control the possibility of non-gradual change resulting from sudden outside influence or archaism. If the conditions for success can be met, either stratigraphy or senation can provide a credible sequence. Each method provides a credible sequence. Each method provides a check on the other; the most credible results are achieved by combining the two.

Worsaae's Law and the Use of Grave Lots for Archaeological Dating

The principle that the objects accompanying a burial are in most cases things which were in use at the same time was first stated by J. J. A. Worsaae in 1843. This principle rests on several assumptions, among them that it was customary to place objects beside the dead only at the time of burial, and that the objects so placed were ones owned or used by the occupant or his friends at the time of his death. There is at least one area, the Andean sierra, where we have historical evidence for the renewal of offerings in tombs, and in some cases renewal may have continued periodically for as much as 200 years. In the light of this example it is clearly necessary to determine the burial customs prevailing in the area and period concerned before using grave associations as evidence for contemporaneity. There is also a number of special circumstances which may produce exceptions to the conditions assumed in Worsaaes Law, and to cover the possibility of such exceptions the archaeologist must work with a sufficient number of grave lots so that he can establish rules of consistent association and identify exceptions to them. Worsaaes Law may be extended to state that the objects accompanying a burial were in most cases not only used at the same time but made within a few years of one another. Heirlooms and antiques, the kinds of objects which would not conform to this statement, can be expected to be rare enough so that they would be recognized as exceptions to the prevailing pattern of associations. The evidence of contemporaneity which grave associations provide can be used in two ways. If no stylistic sequence has yet been established for an area, grave associations can serve to check hypothetical sequences suggested on the basis of external evidence. Grave associations provide no evidence of sequence as such, but they do provide a means of testing the validity of the stylistic units or phases which any sequence implies. If a stylistic sequence is already established, the evidence of grave lots can be used to extend it to kinds of materials not included in the original sequence. Fuller utilization of burial associations for both purposes could lead to the solution of many problems in archaeological dating.

Diffusionism and Archaeology

Doctrinaire diffusionism is a menace to the development of sound archaeological theory based on comparative studies; it distracts archaeologists from such studies and seeks to destroy the basis of comparison. Diffusionist arguments are defective in principle, however. The bias in the selection of data for these arguments can be illustrated by listing cultural similarities between ancient Peru and the ancient Mediterranean.

On the history of the Nasca sequence

Abstract The question of the chronological order of the Monumental and Proliferous modes in Nasca ceramics has been the subject of a long debate based on unfounded theories of artistic development. Recent work by Lawrence E. Dawson, using archaeological associations and similiary seriation, has resulted in ordering Nasca ceramics into 9 phases in which the Monumental mode precedes the Proliferous. Most recently, radiocarbon age determinations have confirmed Dawsons ordering.La cuestión del orden cronológico de las dos modalidades principales del arte Nasca, la Monumental y la Prolífera, ha generado un debate en que los argumentos se han basado en teorías del desarrollo del arte que faltan de valor científico. El trabajo último de Lawrence E. Dawson, utilizando asociaciones arqueológicas y el método de la seriación por parecido, ha resultado en una secuencia de la cerámica nasca compuesto de 9 fases y en que la modalidad Monumental antecede la Prolífera. El desarrollo reciente de la técnica de determinación radiocarbónica de la edad ha confirmado la secuencia de Dawson.