reading response

Society for American Archaeology

Huaca de los Reyes Revisited: Clarification of the Archaeological Evidence Author(s): Thomas Pozorski Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 335-339 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971835 Accessed: 11-04-2017 14:32 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Antiquity

This content downloaded from 204.168.144.64 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:32:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Recent publications have seriously misrepresented architectultal and archaeological information concerning the important lnitial Period (1800-900 B.C.) site of Huaca de los Reyes in the Moche Valley, Peru. Excavation evidence available since the mid-1970s clearly shows that most of the surface architecture at the site belongs to a single, integrated construction phase and is not the cumulative result of eight construction phases as proposed by Conklin (1985). This chronological clarification is e.specially significant hecause some Initial Period coastal mound sites are the result of only one or two large construction phases (Pozorski and Pozorski 1986), whereas others apparently contain multiple small construction phases (Burger 1992). Large-scale planning and construction imply more sophisticated levels of sociopolitical organization.

Publicaciones recientes han presentado informacion arquitectonica y arqueologica incorrecta sobre el importante sitio del Periodo Inicial (1800-900 a. C.) de la Huaca de los Reyes en el valle de Moche, Peru. La evidencia de excavacion, disponible

desde mediados de los 1970s, muestra claramente que la mayoria de la arquitectura de la superficie del sitio pertenece a una sola fase de construccion integrada, y no es resultado acumulativo de ocho fases de construccion, como propone Conklin (1985). Esta clarificacion cronologica es especialmente significativa porque algunos monticulos del Periodo Inicial en la

costa contienen solamente una o dos fases grandes de construccion (Pozorski y Pozorski 1986) aunque otros aparentamente contienen multiples fases pequenas (Burger 1992). La planificacion y construccion a gran escala implican un nivel mas alto de organizacion sociopolitica.

Thomas Pozorski * Department of Anthropology, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, TX 78539

Latin American Antiquity, 6(4), 1995, pp. 335-339.

Copyright g by the Society for American Archaeology

Conklin's (1985) article on the architecture

of Huaca Los Reyes, an Initial Period

(1800-900 B.C.) site that is part of the

Caballo Muerto Complex located in Peru's north-

coast Moche Valley, proposes a multiphase con-

struction sequence. At the time of publication, I

was taken aback by the proposal because it

directly contradicts the evidence I have published

as the primary investigator of the site (Pozorski

1975, 1976, 1980, 1982a, 1982b). Naively, I

hoped that people who read Conklin's article

would also consider my ideas, which are based on

archaeological field data. My hope has been

proved ill-founded with the recent publication of

three major works on the Andean area.

In 1992, Moseley published the first synthetic

review in English of Andean archaeology in

nearly 20 years. Although much of what he states

about Initial Period society is supported by the

latest archaeological data, he uncritically accepts

Conklin's proposed eight-phase sequence for con-

struction of the main mound of Huaca de los

Reyes, which was purportedly executed over hun-

dreds of years (Moseley 1992:138-139).

Also in 1992, Burger published a more detailed

examination of the early portion of Peruvian pre-

history. Although Burger (1992:235) consulted me

and included a footnote stating that there are prob-

lems in correlating Conklin's sequence with the

available archaeological evidence (Burger

1992:235), he nevertheless states that the main

mound of the site was the 'product of many phases

of building activity" and that "the ceramic associ-

ations confirm that the complex [Huaca de los

Reyes] was built over several centuries" (Burger

1992:92). This multiphase view of Huaca de los

Reyes is very much in keeping with Burger's

(1992:62) general belief that large early mounds

are the cumulative result of multiple, small phases

of construction that spanned long periods.

In 1991 Bonavia published the most recent com-

prehensive review in Spanish of Peruvian prehis-

335

HUACA DE LOS REYES REVISITED: CLARIFICATION OF 1 HE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Thomas Pozorski

-

This content downloaded from 204.168.144.64 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:32:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

336 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 6, No. 4, 1995]

-

Figure 1. Plan of Huaca de los Reyes showing the well-planned symmetrical layout of the

main complex. Most of the visible architecture belongs to the second of two construction

phases uncovered in 1973.

tory; his discussion of Huaca de los Reyes includes

two figures with captions that tacitly accept the

validity of Conklin's construction sequence

(Bonavia 1991: 173-174, Figures 20 and 21).

The three volumes mentioned above will prob-

ably serve as standards on Peruvian archaeology

for many years to come. Consequently, I feel

compelled to correct the misconceptions about

the nature of Huaca de los Reyes that originated

in Conklin's 1985 article and have been perpetu-

ated in the three recent books.

In 1973 and 1974 I conducted a survey and a

series of excavations within the Caballo Muerto

complex, which included a total of six weeks

spent on excavation at Huaca de los Reyes. The

main mound construction of Huaca de los Reyes

is very complex, with a precisely planned bilater-

ally symmetrical layout (Figure 1). Four radiocar-

bon dates (uncalibrated) indicate that the site was

built and occupied around 1300 B.C. (Pozorski

1975 :247-248, 1976: 112-113, 1980: 108,

1982a:248, 1982b:529). In addition to the collec-

tion of associated artifacts, a specific goal of my

research was to clarify uncertainties about the

architectural plan of the site by considerably

expanding on the work by Watanabe in 1972

(Moseley and Watanabe 1974; Watanabe 1979).

Conklin (1985: 146-160), in proposing the

eight-phase construction sequence for the main

mound, argues that the site generally grew from

west to east, with later phases obscuring architec-

ture and entrance patterns of earlier phases. There

was also some in-filling of architecturally empty

space, according to his sequence. In addition to

his main eight-phase construction sequence,

Conklin (1985: 144-146) proposes that two

mound constructions (his Constructions A and B)

were sequentially built earlier than the main

mound as a whole.

Although he visited the site on two occasions

in 1978 and again in 1979, Conklin seems to have

derived most of his ideas from extensive use of

the 1929 Shippee-Johnson aerial photograph of

Huaca de los Reyes. His construction sequence

has almost no correlation with hard excavation

data. Instead, it appears that his ideas are based on

unwarranted assumptions about chronology that

are derived from surface configurations of archi-

tecture (Conklin 1985: 139-141). Conklin had

access to my dissertation (Pozorski 1976) and at

least two of my other publications on the site

(Pozorski 1975, 1980). In 1979 he also sent me

This content downloaded from 204.168.144.64 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:32:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

R E PO RTS 337

RECOI*STRUCSI MW

HUACA DE LOS REYES .4

___W_ _ tD

N

I ,. "\ 'I

l

a - '

= at Figure 2. Plan of Huaca de los Reyes: Locations of 1973 excavations that revealed incontro- vertible evidence of architectural contemporaneity and continuity between Conklin's pro- posed construction phases (aj); Conklin's Phase 2 (A-B); Conklin's Phase 3 (C-F); Conklin's Phase 4 (G-H); Conklin's Phase 5 (I-N); Conklin's Phase 6 (O-R); Conklin's Phase 7 (S-T); portion of Conklin's Phase 8 (U); Conklin's Construction A (V); Conklin's Construction B (W).

for my comments a preliminary draft of his paper that presented essentially the same construction sequence that he published in 1985. My letter to him of August 3O, 1979, pointing out the prob- lems with his sequence went unanswered.

Specifically, according to my excavation data Conklin's Phases 1 through 7 as well as part of his Phase 8 all unequivocally belong to a single con- struction phase. Excavation showed that architec- tural units he defines as phases are physically connected by continuous plastered floors, stair- cases, and walls. For instance, his Phase 2 archi- tecture (Figure 2A-B; Conklin 1985:Figure 8) is directly connected with the colonnaded facade of his Phase 5 architecture (Figure 2I-K; Conklin 1985:Figure 15) by a long staircase (Figure 2a). His Phase 3 architecture (Figure 2C-F; Conklin 1985:Figures 9,11, and 12) is directly linked with the wing structures of his Phase 6 architecture (Figure 2Q-R; Conklin 1985:Figure 16) by plas- tered floors and walls (Figure 2b-c). It is also connected with the colonnades and niched

facades of his Phase 5 architecture (Figure 2I-N; Conklin 1985: Figure 15) by plastered floors, walls, and staircases (Figure 2d-f).

In several places, I deliberately dug beneath floors and behind walls to check for possible ear- lier constructions. For example, excavations (Figure 2g) behind the niches along the mound front containing large mud-frieze heads (part of his Phase 5 [Figure 2L; Conklin 1985:Figure 15]) showed that the construction fill there is the same fill that composes the walls of the "massive tow- ers" of Conklin's Phase 3 (Figure 2E-F; Conklin 1985:Figures 9 and 10). (The "massive towers" here had walls with an estimated height of 2 to 3 m, not the 10 to 20+ m height Conklin [1985: 150-151] suggests). The "pavilions" of his Phase 4 architecture (Figure 2G-H; Conklin 1985 :Figures 13 and 14) are directly connected by architectural bonding and shared fill (Figure 2h-i) with the main east facade of his Phase 5 (Figure 2L-N; Conklin 1985:Figure 15). In addi- tion, the staircases (Figure 2j) along the west sides

This content downloaded from 204.168.144.64 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:32:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

338 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 6, No. 4, 1995]

of the "pavilions" are bonded into the construc-

tion of Conklin's Phase 3 "massive towers"

(Figure 2E-F; Conklin 1985 :Figure 9).

His Phase 7 consists of two major wing struc-

tures that project eastward and are physically sep-

arated from the main mound. Nevertheless, I

argue that architectural and frieze-design similar-

ities with other colonnaded portions of the site, in

addition to comparable associated artifacts, sup-

port the conclusion that this phase is also contem-

porary with his other six phases.

A portion of Conklin's Phase 8, specifically the

irregular rooms with thin stone walls located at the

east end of the main south wing structure (Figure

2U; Conklin 1985:Figure 19), is probably of

somewhat later date than surrounding construc-

tion. Excavations there (Pozorski 1976:37S377)

revealed that the irregular walls abut the two

thicker walls that flank them; the bases of the

irregular walls also rest on ground several cen-

timeters higher than the bases of the adjacent

thicker walls. Conklin (1985:160) notes that the

irregularity of these walls is similar to that of later

Moche and Chimu architecture. Discovery of

some Moche pottery in an exploratory cut

(Pozorski 1976:376) suggests the possibility of a

much later date for the irregular walls.

Conklin also discusses two other buildings, his

Constructions A and B. According to his sequence

(Conklin 1985: 144-145), Construction A (Figure

2V; Conklin 1985:Figure 6a) is the earliest con-

struction at Huaca de los Reyes because of (1) its

slightly different orientation, (2) its architectural

simplicity, (3) the more eroded nature of its ruins,

and (4) the apparent overlapping of some of its

architecture by portions of the main mound.

Finally, for reasons that are not totally clear,

Conklin (1985: 145-146) views Construction B

(Figure 2W; Conklin 1985:Figure 6b), a rather

small enclosure, as having been built after

Construction A but before his Phase 1 (Conklin

1985:Figure 7). Based on my own surface survey

and excavations, the available evidence is

ambiguous in terms of the chronological positions

of these two constructions relative to the main

mound of the site. Either one could predate, post-

date, or be contemporaneous with the bulk of the

construction at Huaca de los Reyes.

It should be noted that my excavations did

reveal some evidence of an earlier construction

phase, mainly in the western portion of the main

mound (Pozorski 1975:214, 1976:46-47,

1980: 101, 1982a:233, 1982b:525). However, this

earlier phase is covered by 1 to 3 m of fill, does

not manifest itself in the surface architecture, and

therefore has nothing to do with Conklin's con-

struction phases that deal only with surface, rather

than buried, architecture.

In sum, excavation data from Huaca de los

Reyes show that all eight of Conklin's architec-

tural construction phases (save for a portion of

Phase 8) are in fact contemporaneous with one

another and were built as a single, integrated,

planned unit. The method and assumptions used

to create his construction phases are flawed, and

result in a construction sequence that is contrary

to most of the excavated evidence.

Conklin appears to assume that architectural

variation necessarily indicates chronological diffier-

ences, much as some Andean scholars traditionally

view ceramic and iconographic variation. He fol-

lows this same type of reasoning when he postu-

lates a three-phase seriation of the friezes at Huaca

de los Reyes (Conklin 1985:160-162, Figure 20).

According to Conklin (1985: 160-161), the friezes

are restricted to his Phases 5 through 7; however, as

we have seen, all three phases are indisputably

linked to other constructions and their phases.

There is, however, one area of the site that does

contain a chronological separation between two

sets of friezes. Along the east facade of the west

main mound (Figure 2I-K), my excavation of four

niches revealed evidence of two construction

phases. During the first phase, each niche con-

tained a frieze of a central bipedal figure flanked

by two fanged profile faces. In the second phase,

which comprises most of the surface architecture

visible at the site, the floors of the niches were

raised and the original friezes were covered with

a new central figure flanked by subsidiary figures

and faces (Pozorski 1975:236-242, Figures 31,

32, 37, 38; 1976:84-91, Figures 42, 43, 48, 49;

1980: 105- 107, Figures 6 and 7; 1982a:242--245,

Figures 10.10 and 10.11). This construction-

phase evidence does not fit into Conklin's pro-

posed sequence because the remodeled niches are

entirely encompassed within his Phase 5 architec-

ture (Conklin 1985: 161-162, Figure 15).

This content downloaded from 204.168.144.64 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:32:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

development. Such evidence should not be ignored in the reconstruction of the sociopolitical

organization of early Andean societies.

References Cited

Bonavia, D.

1991 Peru Hombre e Historia de los origenes al siglo XV. Ediciones Edubanco, Lima.

Burger, R. L.

1992 Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Conklin, W. J.

1985 The Architecture of Huaca Los Reyes. In Early Ceremonial Architecture in the Andes, edited by C. B. Donnan, pp. 139-164. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Moseley, M. E.

1992 The Incas and TheirAncestors. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Moseley, M. E., and L. Watanabe

1974 The Adobe Sculpture of Huaca de Los Reyes: Imposing Artwork from Coastal Peru. Archaeology 27(3): 154-161.

Pozorski, S., and T. Pozorski

1986 Recent Excavations at Pampa de las Llamas- Moxeke, a Complex Initial Period Site in Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:381 -401.

1992 Early Civilization in the Casma Valley, Peru. Antiquity 66:845-870.

Pozorski, T.

1975 E1 complejo Caballo Muerto: los frisos de barro de la Huaca de los Reyes. Revista del Museo Nacional 41:211-251.

1976 Caballo Muerto. A Complex of Early Ceramic Sites in the Moche Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1980 The Early Horizon Site of Huaca de los Reyes: Societal Implications. AmericanAntiquity 45:100-110.

1982a Early Social Stratification and Subsistence Systems: The Caballo Muerto Complex. In Chan Chan.

Andean Desert City, edited by M. E. Moseley and K. C. Day, pp. 225-253. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1982b The Caballo Muerto Complex: An Investigation of Cupisnique Culture. National Geographic Society Research Reports 14:523-532.

Watanabe, L.

1979 Arquitectura de la Huaca "Los Reyes." In Arqueologia Peruana: investigaciones arqueologicas en

el Peru 1976, edited by R. Matos Mendieta, pp. 17-35. Centro de Proyeccion Cristiana, Lima.

Received November 30, 1993; accepted May 19, 1994.

REPORTS 339

Nevertheless, Conklin uses a frieze from my

first construction phase in an attempt to support

his frieze seriation. Located just south of the

colonnade on the east facade of the west main mound (Figure 2K), the frieze is more curvilinear

than most at the site, and it seems, superficially, to

lend support to Conklin's hypothetical seriation.

The use of this single frieze as representative of

an earlier style is, however, rather misleading in

view of the fact that three other friezes in adjacent

niches along the east facade, clearly part of the

same construction phase, are stylistically quite

close to friezes that border both Plaza II and Plaza III of my second construction phase (Figure 2;

Pozorski 1975:Figures l, 3, 5, 6, 12, 16-19, 25,

31, 32, 38; 1976:Figures 12, 14, 16, 17, 23, 27-30, 36, 42, 43, 49; 1980:Figures 5-7;

1982a:Figures 10.4, 10.10, 10.11); this under-

mines Conklin's (1985: 161) claim of stylistic

changes from a curvilinear to a more geometric

style. As I have previously pointed out regarding

the variety within friezes present at Huaca de los

Reyes (Pozorski 1975:246-247, 1976:183-187,

1980:108, 1982a:245-248, 1982b:527-529),

variation does not necessarily reflect change over

time. It is clear that ancient people were just as

capable as modern people of considerable varia- tion in artistic expression, and the same can be said for architectural expression.

The point of this discussion is not just a cor-

rection concerning the chronology of one site. It

also involves the recognition of architectural com- plexity and massiveness of early Andean con-

struction as a reflection of the social organization

of the societies that created such monuments. I

believe that the precision, massiveness, and com-

plexity of planning exhibited by sites like Huaca

de los Reyes and other early sites such as those in the Casma Valley (Pozorski and Pozorski 1986,

1992) south of the Moche Valley, can be used as

good indicators of a relatively high level of social

This content downloaded from 204.168.144.64 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:32:24 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms