New Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from the AyacuchoComplex, PeruElmo León Canales and Juan Yataco Capcha

Evidence of final-Pleistocene (i.e., Pre-Clovis) human presence in SouthAmerica is scarce but still significant in the debate of the early peopling of theAmericas (Dillehay 1999).

Some of the most crucial data on the earliest Central Andean occupationare those from the Ayacucho complex, Peru, despite criticisms about theincomplete and unintelligible form of the published final report of thismaterial (e.g., Rick 1988:16). Further critiques address the lack of detaileddefinitions of individual lithic types and comparisons with other known typesof the Andes (Dillehay 1985:196); suspicious 14C dating of bone samples, somewith problematic associations (Lynch 1974, 1990, 1981, 1983; Rick 1988:13);absence of evidence of fire (Rick 1988:14); and serious doubts about thecredibility of supposed human-made lithic artifacts of the Pacaicasa complex(Bonavia 1991:89; Rick 1988:13). Certainly these deficiencies seem not to bethe case for the overlying phase called Ayacucho. According to Rick (1988:16),Ayacucho-phase materials are in a different status because there are a signifi-cant number of lithics of exogenous raw material and the probability that theywere found in situ, some even occurring in “concentrations” despite problems

Elmo León Canales, Georg-Foster Post-Doctoral Fellow, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation,Institut of Ancient Americanist and Ethnology, University of Bonn, Oxfordstrasse. 15, D-53111Bonn, Germany; e-mail: elmoleon@gmx.net

Juan Yataco Capcha, Curator, Lithic Collection, Museo de Arqueología y Antropología, UniversidadNacional Mayor de San Marcos, Parque Universitario, Av. Nicolás de Piérola 1222, Lima 1, Peru; e-mail: capchajuan@gmail.com

34 GARCÍA P. Archaeology: Latin America

in the manner in which the material was presented. In fact, a taphonomicstudy could be a key contribution in this regard, but this exceeds the scope ofthis manuscript that addresses some lithic artifacts from this phase.

Dillehay (1988:199) himself asks for a detailed description of the lithicartifacts, which is not given in the original Pikimachay volumes (MacNeish etal. 1980, 1983). For this reason we are currently undertaking a thoroughreview of the stone tools from Pikimachay cave that are stored in the Museumof Archaeology, San Marcos University, Lima, applying the chaîne opératoire

approach (e.g., Pelegrin 1995). Consequently we searched for and found apart of the collection of the Botanical Archaeological Project of Ayacucho inthe Museum. We examined this collection and present some preliminaryresults here.

Pikimachay Cave is located halfway up the slope of a mountain at 2,850m.a.s.l. in Ayacucho, central Peru (MacNeish 1979; MacNeish et al. 1980). Theoldest component of this cave was defined as the Pacaicasa complex, whichoccurs in four zones, layers “k”, “j”, “i”, and “i1”. These layers yielded 96megafauna bones, 73 lithic artifacts, and around 100 flakes (MacNeish et al.1983:2). Four 14C measurements on sloth bones have been used to date thismaterial to approximately 25,000–15,000 RCYBP (Dillehay 1985:198). Never-theless, the above-mentioned criticisms make it difficult to accept these oldestlevels with confidence.1

Two further overlying layers, named “h1” and “h,” were ascribed to theAyacucho complex. For the first time, it appears that we are dealing withhuman-made lithic artifacts (cf. Rick 1988). These have been found in bothlayers. This phase is composed of 212 artifacts, more than 1,000 debitagepieces, and 517 animal bones (MacNeish et al. 1983:3,5). The occurrence ofpossibly thermo-fractured rocks suggests the presence of fire (Dillehay1985:198). A 14C sample of a Scelidotherium (ground sloth) bone obtained fromzone “h” was dated to 14,150 ± 180 RCYBP (UCLA-1464), which corrected(ShCal04) gives the result of 17,221–16,560 CALYBP. Although this samplecame from an unmodified bone, a coherent concentration of artifacts foundgives it some credibility (cf. MacNeish 1979). In fact, the Ayacucho phase,associated with apparently valid stone and bone artifacts, has been accepted bymany scholars as a credible pre-Clovis component (Dillehay 1985:199).

Bearing this opinion in mind, let us now review briefly the part of theAyacucho collection that we found in the collection. Except for the bonepoint, all pieces come from zone “h” (i.e., the Ayacucho component). Prob-ably the most interesting specimen is a bifacial stemmed point (Figure 1F [cf.MacNeish et al. 1980:49, Figure 2-1]) that was found associated with slothvertebrae and other debris along the margin of a concentration of remains(catalog number Ac100 231-VIIdd). It was probably made of a flake of volcanictuff. The outline was also probably achieved by employing a soft hammer withpartial retouching. The final fracture seems to have been caused by a technicalfailure in finishing the piece rather than by use.

1 Readers interested in an in-depth review of this issue should consult the original publication(MacNeish et al. 1979).

CRP 25, 2008 LEÓN CANALES/CAPCHA 35

Seven unifacial artifacts have also been located (cf. MacNeish et al.1980:190-200). Among them there are four modified flakes, mostly of volcanictuff. Furthermore, a modified flake could also be classified as a knife made ofsilicified sandstone (Figure 1A), despite its being considered a unifacial pointby MacNeish et al. (1980:49, Figure 2-1) (catalogue number Ac100 274, 1a).The two negative removals on the superior face show that it was detached froma core delivering elongated flakes. The “retouch” could have been producedby use due to its irregular shape. Also a perforator has been recorded. Afterthe organization of the dorsal negatives, it is likely that it was made of a bifacialreduction flake (Figure 1B) (cf. MacNeish 1979:Figure 23). This is a goodexample of économie de debitage. This piece seems to be made of flint by meansof hard percussion.

The collection also contains a possible eroded small bifacial preform (Fig-ure 1C) (without catalog number) made of metamorphic material (cf.MacNeish et al. 1980:195, Figure 5-4). The centripetal orientation of theremovals partially shown on both faces indicates bifacial reduction. It wastrimmed by hard percussion. This artifact may be a bifacial point preform.

Additionally, a polished bone point of ground sloth (Figure 1D) (cf.MacNeish 1979:Figure 23) and a chopping tool made of a volcanic rawmaterial (Figure 1E) (cf. MacNeish 1979:Figure 22) have been identified. Thebone point displays clear linear traces that seem to have originated duringmanufacture. A volcanic square-shaped core is also recorded.

The debitage is composed mostly of flakes of basalt, quartz, and volcanic rawmaterials (cf. MacNeish et al. 1980:190, 193, 198). In this case these specimensare marked “h” and “h1.” The shapes and organization of the negativessuggest they are the result of activities related to reducing cores and bifacialthinning.

In sum, if we assume the validity of the 14C date of the Ayacucho complexand its possible associations within the same strata, we would be able toperceive interesting (and even somewhat premature) traits among these

A B C D

E F

0 5

cm

Figure 1. Lithic artifacts from the Ayacucho complex, central Peru, possibly dating to around17,200–16,560 CALYBP.

36 LEÓN CANALES/CAPCHA Archaeology: Latin America

terminal-Pleistocene Andean flintknappers: They produced intentional elon-gated flakes (blade-like flakes) and bifacial pieces of fine-grained rocks, andmaximized use of raw material by salvaging debitage to make new artifacts.Despite the small collection of pieces examined, we advance some interestingfinds when analyzing in detail further possible terminal-Pleistocene collec-tions of the Central Andes.

References Cited

Bonavia, D. 1991 Peru, Hombre e Historia. De los Orígenes al Siglo XV. Edubanco, Lima.

Dillehay, T. D. 1985 A Regional Perspective of Preceramic Times in the Central Andes. Reviews in

Anthropology 12(3):193–205.

——— 1999 The Late Pleistocene Cultures in South America. Evolutionary Anthropology

7(6):206–16.

Lynch, T. 1974 The Antiquity of Man in South America. Quaternary Research 4:356–77.

Lynch, T. F. 1981 Zonal Complementarity in the Andes: A History of the Concept. In Networks of

the Past: Regional Interaction in Archaeology, edited by P. D. Francis, F. Kense, and P. G. Duke, pp. 221–31. Calgary, University of Calgary.

——— 1983 The Paleo-Indians. In Ancient South Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 87–137.New York, Freeman.

——— 1990 Glacial-Age Man in South America? American Antiquity 55(1):12–36.

MacNeish, R. S. 1979 The Early Man Remains from Pikimachay Cave, Ayacucho Basin, HighlandPeru. In Pre-Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities, edited by R. L. Humprey andDennis Stanford, pp. 1–47. Anthropological Society of Washington.

MacNeish, R. S., R. K. Vierra, A. Nelken-Turner, and C. J. Phagan (editors) 1980 Prehistory of the

Ayacucho Basin, Peru. Volume III, Nonceramic Artifacts. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeologyand the University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

MacNeish, R. S., R. K. Vierra, A. Nelken-Turner, R. Lurie, and A. García Cook 1983 Prehistory of

the Ayacucho Basin, Peru. Volume IV. The Preceramic Way of Life. Robert S. Peabody Foundation forArchaeology and the University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Pelegrin, J. 1995 Technologie Lithique: Le Chatelperronien de Roc de Combe (Lot) et de laCote (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire. CNRS Editions. Paris.

Rick, J. 1988 The Character and Context of Highland Preceramic Society. In Peruvian Archaeol-

ogy: An Overview of Pre-Inca Society, edited by R. W. Keatinge, pp. 3–40. Cambridge University Press,London.

CRP 25, 2008 LEÓN CANALES/CAPCHA 37