Ñawpa Pacha

Journal of Andean Archaeology

ISSN: 0077-6297 (Print) 2051-6207 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ynaw20

The Late Intermediate Period ceramic traditions

of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica: current
thoughts on the Chanca and other regional polities

Frank Meddens & Cirilo Vivanco Pomacanchari

To cite this article: Frank Meddens & Cirilo Vivanco Pomacanchari (2018): The Late Intermediate
Period ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica: current thoughts on the
Chanca and other regional polities, Ñawpa Pacha, DOI: 10.1080/00776297.2018.1436653

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00776297.2018.1436653

Published online: 02 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ynaw20
THE LATE INTERMEDIATE PERIOD CERAMIC TRADITIONS OF AYACUCHO,
APURIMAC, AND HUANCAVELICA: CURRENT THOUGHTS ON THE CHANCA
AND OTHER REGIONAL POLITIES

Frank Meddens and Cirilo Vivanco Pomacanchari

This article serves to evaluate the Late Intermediate Period (LIP) and early Late Horizon Period (LH) ceramic traditions of
Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica, and provides an updated review of the pottery styles known across this area. It also
provides a view of the implications of these data regarding the social, religious, and political structure of the polities active
across this area. The article reviews the available ceramic data for the LIP Chanka tradition in Peru (AD 1000–1470) and
develops a model for the development and interactions of the local ceramic styles from Ayacucho, Apurimac, and
Huancavelica, and their temporal sequence. The Chancas and their allies were claimed by the Incas to have been instru-
mental in triggering the expansion of the Inca empire. The implications of the results of the research for current ethnohistoric
models of the interactions between the Chanca polity and the Inca state have been examined and are presented.

Este artículo sirviera para reevaluar las tradiciones cerámicas para el Periodo Intermedio Tardío y inicios del Horizonte
tardío de Ayacucho, Apurímac, y Ayacucho y presenta una visiona actual de los estilos de cerámica atreves de esta región.
Asimismo presentamos una visión de lo que significan estos datos para las estructuras sociales, religiosas y políticas de los
grupos presentes. Revisamos las informaciones disponibles sobre la tradición Chanca en el Perú (1000–1470 d.C.) y
desarrollamos un modelo de las interacciones entre los estilos de cerámica locales de Ayacucho, Apurímac, y
Huancavelica y su exposición temporal. Los Incas indicaban que Los Chancas fueron en parte responsables por el
iniciar de Imperio Inca. Se revisa los resultados de nuestras investigaciones por lo que implica para los modelos corrientes
etnohistóricos de las interacciones entre el grupo Chanca y el estado Inca.

T he Chanca have long played a prominent role in

the presentations of Inca “historical” narratives.
Not only do the Chanca as an ethnic group figure
large in these stories as dangerous and powerful
rivals and enemies of the Inca, but their presence is
portrayed as a real and considerable threat to the sur-
vival of the early Inca state. The Chanca wars are pre-
sented as pivotal to the successful growth of the Inca
empire and a justification for its expansionist policies
(Polo de Ondegardo 1916–17 [1571]: III:50). The

Frank Meddens, Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, London, UK (frank.meddens@googlemail.com)

Cirilo Vivanco Pomacanchari, Facultad de Ciencies Sociales, Universidad de Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru (civipo9@yahoo.es)

Ñawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology, pp. 1–54. # 2018 Institute of Andean Studies. All rights reserved.

1
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
region traditionally attributed as the homeland of the
Chanca polity is that of the present province of
Andahuaylas in the department of Apurimac (Bauer
et al. 2010: 17; Julien 2002). This zone is situated
in the southern highlands of Peru in an area of high
altitude pasture land intercut by fertile intermontane
valleys, which continue to be used for the cultivation
of traditional Andean crops such as maize and quinoa
as well as European introductions and the herding of
camelids, cattle, and sheep.
The early Spanish chroniclers recorded information
about the Chancas from Inca oral traditions. These
stories describe events occurring more than a
century before the Spaniards’ arrival in the Andes,
taking place during the reign of the Inca Viracocha.
We are told the Chanca polity, under the leadership
of Hastu Huaraca and Tomay Huaraca, together
with their deity Uscovilca, invaded Inca territory
and demanded the reigning Inca Viracocha’s sub-
mission. Viracocha and a favored son Urco escaped
to the Calca area north of Cuzco, while one of the
Inca’s younger sons Inca Yupanqui stayed in Cuzco
and organized its defense with a collection of
friends and allies such as the Aymaraes and
Cotapampas. In the prelude leading up to warfare,
Inca Yupanqui had a vision of the sun god Apu
Viracocha Pachayachachic predicting his success in
the forthcoming battle. In the combat that ensued,
the stones on the battlefield ( pururauca) turned into
warriors and joined the fight on Inca Yupanqui’s
side,1 and the Chanca force was defeated. Following
this encounter, the remaining Chancas are said to
have regrouped outside of the city of Cuzco on the
plain of Ichupampa, but here too Inca forces soon
overwhelmed them. Inca Yupanqui had the skulls of
the Chanca leaders turned into drinking vessels and
their skins into drums. When the Spaniards later
saw the ancient battlefield, the remains of the
Chanca fallen were said to be found there still
(Betanzos 1987 [1551]: 32–33). Inca Yupanqui even-
tually became the ruler Pachacuti—“he who inverts
time and space”—who reorganized the city of
Cuzco and its social structure and initiated the
Incas’ imperial expansion. Many versions of the
story exist with mythical elements embedded in
2
them (Cabello Valboa 1951 [1586]: 298–304;
Cieza de León 1967 [1553]: 123–132; Garcilaso de
la Vega 1721 [1609]: 151–155; Guáman Poma de
Ayala 1980 [1583–1615]: 66; Pachacuti Yamqui
Salcamaygua 1993 [1613]: 217–221; Sarmiento de
Gamboa 1988 [1572]: 86–97). In truth, little of
this can be historically or archaeologically
substantiated.2
Ethnohistorical Contexts
Contemporary scholars have either interpreted the
accounts as reflecting historical events which took
place at the dawn of Inca expansion (Hyland 2010:
5–6; Rowe 1946: 189), or as describing more mythi-
cal than real proceedings (Bauer 2004; Bauer et al.
2010; Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari 2005:
73–99). Other interpretations see the occurrences as
reflecting earlier conflicts during the Middle
Horizon (MH), such as the Wari withdrawal from
Cuzco (Zuidema 1989 [1967]: 204–211), which
the Incas would have attributed to themselves to
enhance their reputation.
According to early colonial documentary sources,
the home territory of the Chanca was centered on
the Andahuaylas region in the present-day depart-
ment of Apurimac (Bauer et al. 2010; Gomez
Choque 2008; Julien 2002; Kellett 2010; Kurin
2016). Less convincingly, Gonzales Carré and col-
leagues have proposed the provinces of Huamanga,
Cangallo, and Andahuaylas as the zone where the
Hanan and Hurin Chanca polities were historically
located (González Carré 1992: 89–90; González
Carré and Pineda 1983: 101). The latter authors
also include the Late Intermediate Period (LIP) com-
munities across much of Huancavelica, Ayacucho,
and Apurimac—particularly the area along the Rio
Pampas and its tributaries—as part of a culturally
unified Chancas entity, suggesting that these ethni-
cally diverse groups formed a Chanca “associated”
or “derived” aggregate. In contrast, we view the
ethnic historic Chanca as being distinct from the
other indigenous communities across the region. As
will become clear, the material culture in the early
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
LIP (LIP1) is far more variable than previously
reported, albeit that there is a distinct tendency for
blending of the material culture in the later LIP
(LIP2). Within this context, LIP2 ethnohistoric
source material indicates the continued existence of
many distinct cultural and political groupings.
As will become clear, the Chanca as an identifiable
polity can be recognized as having existed from the
LIP through to colonial times (Bauer et al. 2010;
Hyland 2010, 2016). The following discussion pre-
sents and defines the ceramic component in archaeolo-
gical assemblages across the departments of Ayacucho,
Huancavelica, and Apurimac during the LIP (AD
1000–1400) and the Late Horizon Period (LH) (AD
1400–1532), and establishes how this archaeological
evidence supports or contradicts the ethnohistoric evi-
dence regarding the Chanca and their neighbors. This
analysis builds on earlier work done by the authors and
by other scholars who have been active across these
departments over the preceding 90 years (e.g., Arco
Parro 1923; Bauer et al. 2010; Carrera et al. 2014
[1945–1946]; González Carré 1992; González Carré
et al. 1987; Lumbreras 1959; Meddens and Vivanco
Pomacanchari 2005; Valdez 2002; Valdez and
Vivanco 1994; Zuidema 1989 [1967]).
The ceramic assemblages discussed below come
from a wide range of sources. Some are from well-
recorded pottery assemblages, derived from controlled
excavations and surface collections held in museums
or under the care of local archaeologists. Other
materials come from private, local council, and
school collections, for which limited provenience
information is available. In these cases, summary
information on the material has been recorded and,
where of sufficient interest, the objects were photo-
graphed. Finally, there is information from published
literature as well as the “grey literature,” largely com-
prising unpublished student dissertations. Because
the conclusions that can be confidently derived
from these diverse sources vary, we provide details
concerning the origins of our data sets throughout
this work.
Archival research has been instrumental in revealing
detailed information on the social structure, kin
relationships, demography, and history of the
3
Chanca nation during the colonial period (Bauer
et al. 2010; Hyland 2010, 2016; Julien 2002).
Colonial sources confirm that, under Inca rule, the
Chanca ethnic group consisted of ten ayllus, of
which five belonged to the Upper (Hanan) Chanca
moiety (consisting of the Guasco, Malma, Apes,
Moros, and Pachacaruas), and five to the Lower
(Hurin) Chanca moiety involving the Guachaca,
Tomay Guaraca, Quichua, Caha, and Yana (Hyland
2010: 7–8). In early colonial times, the Chanca heart-
land extended across an area from Yanama in the east,
to Ongoy in the north and Cachi in the west, with
Pampachiri and Umamarca in the Chicha valley
forming the southern-most limit with the adjoining
Aymara territory (Hyland 2010: 9–10). The two moi-
eties making up the Chanca group—the Hanan
Chanca and Hurin Chanca—may equate to the
late-seventeenth-century Chancas of the Puna and
the Chancas of the valley divisions, mentioned in a
colonial visita of 1684 (Bauer et al. 2010: 42; cf.
Duvoils 1973). This document suggests the Hurin
Chanca occupied the northern part of the territory
while the Hanan Chanca were distributed across the
southern sector of the region (Bauer et al. 2010: 40–
43, Figure 5.2). West of the Chancas, the Soras were
the local ethnic group in the Lucanas3 region (de
Monzón 1965 [1586]) and, to the east, the Aymaras
(Guáman Poma de Ayala 1980 [1583–1615]: 58,
74), with the latter being a group of mitimaes probably
having been introduced by the Inca (Figure 1).
A very early colonial land grant, dating to 1539 by
Francisco Pizarro, concerning a significant sector of
what is now the department of Apurimac as well as
the Quichuas of Vicaporo, is of considerable impor-
tance to our understanding of the distribution of
the late prehispanic and early historic/colonial
Chanca population in Andahuaylas. The earliest avail-
able record of this document dates to 1561 and was
transcribed by Julien (2002). It is referenced here to
clarify the periphery of the Chanca with the Soras ter-
ritory in the one area for the later LH and early colo-
nial period for which we have significant ceramic data
to include in this timeframe. The document refer-
ences 63 pre-reducción settlements and their kurakas
or leaders in the 1570s, reduced to 13 doctrinas or
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

Figure 1. Distribution of principal LIP and LH ethnic groups across Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica. © F. Meddens.

4
Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

5
Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

6
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
parishes under an administrative initiative of the-then
viceroy Francisco de Toledo (Julien 2002).4
Ethnic Divisions across the
Departments of Huancavelica,
Ayacucho, and Apurimac: A Synopsis
This summary of the population of the three depart-
ments considered does not purport to be comprehen-
sive or all-encompassing, but provides a rapid review
of the curazgos present at the end of the LH and
into the early colonial period. The objective of this
exercise is to facilitate, where possible, an understand-
ing of the pottery families’ distributions for the later
prehistoric and proto-historic periods with the
known or projected ethnic divisions.
Ayacucho by 1586 was under the Spanish colonial
authority of Huamanga (Jimenez de la Espada 1965
[1881]: 176–248). There were 33 encomienda
grants, spread over eight provinces or corregimientos
with 259 reducción villages. This territory included
parts of the present-day departments of
Huancavelica, Guamanga, Apurimac, and Nasca.
The six provinces detailed in the Relaciones
Geográficas de Indias comprise Guamanga, Vilcas
Guaman, Angaraes, Atunsora, San Francisco de
Atunrucana y Laramati, and Rucanas Antamarcas
(Jimenez de la Espada 1965 [1881]: 176–248).
Angaraes largely covered a territory in the present
department of Huancavelica. Its administrative
center was Acobamba with the inhabitants distributed
across 21 settlements. The population included
Chancas from Andahuaylas, mitimaes from
Caxamarca or Angaraes, Quiguares from Cusco,
Guaros from Guarochiri or Angaraes Astos, and
Angaraes or Angaraes Chácas (Meddens 2016). For
the region that was part of the province and jurisdic-
tion of Vilcashuaman, there are a total of 60 settle-
ments listed in the Relaciones Geograficas de Indias.
The population here exclusively comprised mitimaes,
except for the parish of Guanpalpa, which was inhab-
ited by Tanquiguas, a group of local origin (Meddens
2016). The repartimento of Atunsora and encomienda
of Hernando Palomino, which came under the
7
authority of Guamanga, were subdivided into three
sections: Anansoras, Lurin Sora, and Chalcos, of
which San Bartolomé de Atunsora represented the
principal settlement. This territory, other than the
latter town, included a further 14 villages occupied
by people who considered themselves Soras
(Meddens 2016). The repartimiento and parish of
Atunrucana and Laramati, and encomienda of Don
Pedro de Cordova, under the jurisdiction of
Guamanga, were divided between two ayllus,
namely Ananrucana and Lurinrucana. The resident
groups were presided over by the principal kuraka of
the Anarucana and his “segunda persona” who was
charged with the administration of the Lurinrucana.
The capital here was San Francisco de Atunrucana,
with some 22 villages (Meddens 2016). The principal
settlement of the repartimiento and crown estate of
the Rucanas Antamarcas was the town of La
Concepción de Huallapampa de Apcara, also under
the authority of Guamanga. The population of
Rucanas Antamarcas was made up of four ayllus:
Antamarca, Apcara, Omapacha, and Huchucayllo.
The capital of this region was Antamarca, the inhabi-
tants of which, following the demographic reorganiz-
ation of the region, were concentrated in the town of
La Vera Cruz de Cabana. A total of 10 settlements
were under its administration (Meddens 2016).
These early colonial ethnic territories constitute a
fair reflection of the LH territorial divisions. The
study region is characterized by several large areas
with resident populations of some considerable long-
evity and size. These include the Rucanas, Soras,
Chanca, and Angareas. Similarly, there were
occasional large regions occupied by substantial
mitimae groups, such as the Aymara in Apurimac.
In addition, there was a considerable intermingling
with smaller mitimae communities, particularly in
northern Ayacucho (Meddens 2016).
Chanca and Chanca-related Ceramic
Traditions and Antecedents
The existing body of research and corpus of material is
reviewed here prior to the presentation of newly
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

analyzed data. The examination of these data and the motifs, wavy lines, circles enclosing centrally placed
regional assemblages contributes to our understand- crosses, crescent shapes (Figure 4) (42), comb-like
ing of the spread, structure, and nature of the shapes, and rhomboid motifs, with designs being fre-
pottery traditions and ethnic groups distributed quently outlined in white or black. Figurative shapes
across the research area in the period preceding and and designs including felines and anthropomorphic
leading up to Inca rule. variants occur occasionally, and a significant size
range is represented from miniature to very large
(vessels as tall as 1.2 m with rim diameters of 40 to
The Huamanga Style 65 cm) (Benavides Calle 1984: 84–85). The designs
are commonly executed on an orange body and
The predecessor to the LIP ceramic styles within
Ayacucho and the adjoining departments of
Apurimac and Huancavelica has been consistently
identified as the Huamanga style (Bauer et al. 2010;
González Carré et al. 1987; Lumbreras 1974;
Meddens 1985; Ochatoma Paravicino and Cabrera
Romero 2001). The Huamanga style comprises
incurving vessels (Figure 2), necked jars, plates,
bowls, face neck jars, cups, spoons, and figurines
(Figure 3). It has been attributed to the MH, disap-
pearing at around the time of the end of Wari territor-
ial control. This ceramic component has been
interpreted as a domestic-use variant of the Wari
pottery tradition. Lumbreras (1958: 88) labels
Huamanga as the local Wari style, while Menzel
(1968: 92) references it as “Secular Viñaque.”
The painted decorative design motifs comprise a
range of geometric patterns, including vertical or
oblique bands, stepped, triangular, and S-shaped
Figure 3. Huamanga-style MH2 figurine—MH offering
deposit [LU5 751–205], Chiqna Jota. © F. Meddens.

Figure 2. Huamanga-style MH2 incurving bowl with knob on

side wall MH offering deposit [LU5 739-SF 128], Chiqna Jota. Figure 4. Huamanga-style MH2 tripod bowl with interior
© F. Meddens. crescent design (42) [LU5 733–25]. © F. Meddens.

8
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
paste (Benavides Calle 1984: 83–87; Lumbreras
1974; Ravines 2011: 487). The pottery was
modeled and thrown on a slow wheel and the non-
plastic inclusions encompass feldspar as well as
minor proportions of quartz and mica. There is
some evidence for the use of organics and fine sand
as a filler, as well as the presence of vascular voids.
Firing in both oxidizing and reducing atmospheres
has been identified (Ochatoma Paravicino and
Cabrera Romero 2001: 153–157). Ochatoma and
Cabrera note variation in the frequency of specific
Huamanga design motifs which can be observed
between sites, such as a tendency for “plumed
wing” designs dominating at Orqo Wayqo, while
stepped motifs are more representative at
Conchopata. These authors attribute such differences
to ethnic and social differentiation as well as the work-
ings of distinct workshops (Ochatoma Paravicino and
Cabrera Romero 2001: 153–157).
A 2007 project, which resulted in a large group of
C14 dates from organic materials directly associated
with Huamanga-style products, produced a wider
temporal range than anticipated, well beyond the
timing of Wari’s projected terminal phase at the
end of the ninth century and extending into the
late-thirteenth century (Finucane et al. 2007). The
samples came from secure contexts from the site of
Huari itself, and also from Azangaro, Posoqoypata,
and Qasapampa in the Huarpa valley. What are
termed “Chanca-style” ceramics from burial contexts
at Qollana and Vegachayoq Moqo at Huari in the
Ayacucho valley were dated to as late as the thirteenth
century (Finucane et al. 2007). Ceramic distribution
data from some 30 sites across the various altitude
ranges around the Ayacucho valley confirm continuity
of a local variant of the Huamanga style well into the
LIP (Pérez Calderón 2013: 165).
There exists a significant range of variability in the
quality of vessel execution and standardization (or
lack of it) in the design motifs that the style employs.
This may be the result of regional and/or temporal
differences among the examples of the materials that
have been brought to light to date. In the
Andahuaylas area, Bauer and Kellett detect a distinct
shift from MH sites associated with Viñaque and
9
Huamanga components to settlements with Chanca-/
Chicha-style ceramics, which they suggest occurred
between AD 1000 and 1100 (Bauer and Kellett
2010: 87–111). The LIP Chanca- and Chicha-style5
affinity with certain elements of Viñaque designs and
forms can be detected in some of the cup forms and
associated painted motifs present and are discussed
further below (Meddens 1985).
Late Intermediate Period Assemblages
Archaeologically, the most visible aspects for the LIP
societies in the research area are the remains of its
architectural, ceramic, and funerary traditions. The
pottery styles for the LIP and LH across Ayacucho,
Apurimac, and parts of Huancavelica have been
broadly linked with the Chanca nation (González
Carré et al. 1987). This approach is questionable as
the area covered is known to have been inhabited
by a wide range of ethnic groups other than the
Chanca during these periods (Bauer et al. 2010). In
their 1980s study of LIP and LH ceramics,
González Carré and colleagues associated the
ceramic traditions with the Chanca nation; their
study was largely based on the collections of the-
then Instituto Nacional de Cultura in Ayacucho
and from the ceramic laboratory of the Universidad
Nacional de San Cristobal de Huamanga. This
work is of considerable importance as it is the first
to be based on a systematic approach to data analysis
across the region. Additionally, several short reviews of
this same material have been published (González
Carré 1992; Ravines 2011).
As already noted, during the LIP and LH, the
research area was occupied by a diverse range of
ethnic groups including the Andamarcas, Aymaraes,
Chancas, Rucanas, and Soras, as well as populations
of mitimaes. In the past, these have been loosely and
inadequately referenced as the Chanca
Confederation, a varying alliance of insecurely linked
social groups that perhaps only coalesced during
times of sufficient external threat (Bauer et al. 2010;
González Carré 1992; Lumbreras 1974; Meddens
and Vivanco Pomacanchari 2005). The Chanca
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Confederation is most explicitly commented on in
Garcilaso de la Vega (1723 [1609]: part 1, book 4,
chapter 15), who states that the allied Chanca polities
included the Hancohuallas, the Unanmarcas, the
Vilcas, and the Utunsullas. These were distributed in
that order from east to west from the edge of
Chanca territory in Apurimac to the vicinity of the
present city of Ayacucho (Bauer et al. 2010: 26–27).
The limited social complexity of these groups, which
included a noticeable absence of social and political
hierarchy and an elite throughout the LIP (Meddens
2011), would have resulted in their being unable to
unite an integrated political structure on any large
scale. Similarly, the small Chanca polity centered on
the Andahuaylas area did not reflect a state level of pol-
itical cohesion or organization at any time during the
LIP (Bauer et al. 2010; Meddens 2011).
Data from 139 LIP sites have been collated to facili-
tate our understanding of the distribution of LIP sites
across the departments of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and
Huancavelica. The data for these sites are incomplete.
Although a confident LIP attribution can be made
based on surface material (architecture and material
culture) for many of these sites, the ceramic associations
are not diagnostic enough to assign them to the specific
LIP1 and LIP2 styles discussed in this article (Figure 5).
The LIP sites appear to be spread along the river valleys
across the department of Huancavelica, the northern
part of Ayacucho (with a few in the central sector and
two in the far south), and the northern and western
parts of Apurimac; however, the lack of archaeological
research in some regions has resulted in gaps in our
knowledge. Although the great majority of these sites
are in the highlands, apparently most were situated in
locations that facilitated access to multiple environ-
mental zones. These have been defined by Tosi
(1960), being broadly based on altitudinal, vegeta-
tional, and climatological differences. Along the north-
ern and southern limits of this territory there are sites
with access to tropical rainforest and desert shrubland,
respectively.
Because ceramics are the most durable cultural arti-
facts in the region, the characteristics and distri-
butions of the LIP ceramic styles potentially
illuminate the cultural development of the ethnic
10
groups present across these three departments.
Detailed definitions and understanding of these
ceramic assemblages have direct implications for
interpretations of the Chanca tradition and how it
interacted with its neighbors and rivals.
The Ceramic Traditions
There are notable issues with respect to the analysis
of contemporaneous ceramic traditions within any
circumscribed area. These tend to include overlap-
ping characteristics between styles in vessel forms,
paste types, and decorative motifs. Where several dis-
tinct styles are identified, it is frequently difficult to
establish within existing data sets where a particular
characteristic originated and what its occurrence
across a set of defined styles signifies (Chilton
1999: 100). Not surprisingly, such is the case here.
It has been possible to flag and define some of the
relationships and the nature of the interactions
involved (see below); however, much remains
obscure. Likewise, overlapping design elements
were found in the LIP Killke and Colcha styles of
the adjoining Cusco area (Bauer 1999: 30).
Indeed, such stylistic relatedness is a common
characteristic for the period elsewhere in Peru, such
as around Lake Titicaca and further south (Stanish
et al. 1997).
Tanta Orqo Ceramics
The Tanta Orqo ceramic style, as defined by
González Carré et al. (1987), includes open bowls,
incurving bowls with animal lug protrusions,
beaker forms, and jar variants, which incorporate
face neck jar types. Decorative motifs used are
painted in white, black, gray, brown, and red, and
comprise zig-zag, wavy line, and oval designs
(Figure 6). These have origins in the earlier Wari
styles, particularly the Huamanga material, although
they are more casual in execution and rougher in
appearance. A second group of decorative elements
comprises solid modeled lugs and knobs with
incised lines and dot and circle features in alignments
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

Figure 5. LIP site distribution. © F. Meddens.

or grouped on the protuberances. The style is found Following González Carré et al., Tanta Orqo pastes
in association with Qachisqo and Arqalla material in the original typology are described as compact and
but not with Inca-style LH ceramics or sites ranging in color from brown to yellow-red and red
(González Carré et al. 1987: 39). (oxidized), with medium white and black inclusions

11
Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

12
Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

13
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 6. Tanta Orqo-style/Koras-style LIP1 variant B jar with
four feet and oval-based exterior design [LAB AQ 217/UNSCH
A08]. © F. Meddens.
from 0.5 to 2 mm in diameter (González Carré et al.
1987: 41–42). Vessel forms include incurving bowls,
neckless ollas, necked jars—including short neck, face
neck, and tapered neck jars with a smaller diameter at
the rim than the neck—as well as open bowls. There
are linear, geometric, oval, and plastic designs. The
presence of animal lug incurving bowls (Figure 7)
from the Lucanas, Apurimac, and Vilcashuaman
regions, and a four-footed short neck jar form from
Koras (Figure 6) in the department of
Huancavelica, indicate that this ceramic material
included several regional subgroups and that it
requires further classification to develop it as a repre-
sentative series of regional styles. Because of its
ceramic associations, such as its occurrence without
Inca-related materials, as well as its associations with
Huamanga- or Wari-style ceramics (González Carré
et al. 1987; Kellett 2010: 397; Meddens 1991),
and its stratigraphic relationships such as were
encountered in excavations in the Chicha valley
(Meddens 1985, 1991, 2011), this material can be
confidently placed in the earlier part of LIP1.
14
González Carré notes a circumscribed distribution
for Tanta Orqo assemblages, with this material
being found in Huancavelica, in the Huanta region
in Ayacucho, and on the eastern jungle slopes of the
Andes in Ayacucho, in the La Mar province, markedly
in the area of Caballayuc (González Carré et al. 1987:
39). Similar material, variously described as Chanca,
Chicha, and Toqsa, also has been found in the
Lucanas region of Ayacucho and across the western
side of the department of Apurimac (see below).
Chanca, Chicha, and Toqsa Ceramics
The Chanca style as described by Bauer et al. (2010)
and Kellett (2010) comprises bowls including an
incurving variant, small jars, storage vessels, and
drinking cups. It has a light-colored, medium-coarse
paste and medium hardness, with quartz, basalt,
and andesite inclusions, and poorly executed linear
and geometric designs (Bauer et al. 2010: 173–179;
Kellett 2010: 387). The decorative motifs are exe-
cuted in dull colors (Kellett 2010: 396) and exhibit
temporal similarities ( particularly in the use of
cross-hatched designs) with the LIP Killke tradition
of the Cuzco region (Bauer 1999; Kellett 2010:
396–397). This material groups together ceramics
that have been included in pottery previously
defined as the Chicha style (Meddens 1985) with cer-
amics defined as Tanta Orqo by González Carré et al.
(1987). Elements of these pottery styles have been
recognized in the general Apurimac area (González
Carré et al. 1987; Kellett 2010; Kurin 2016;
Meddens 1985, 1994). The Chicha style encom-
passes among its forms simple incurving bowls,
animal lug incurving bowls (Figure 7), face neck
(Figure 8) and short neck jars. A relatively large pro-
portion (c. 10 percent) has painted decoration.
At least some of the designs appear to be derived
from earlier Viñaque (Figures 9 and 10) and
Huamanga antecedents. As previously noted, cross-
hatched as well as a range of other geometric motifs
are present (Bauer et al. 2010: 173–179; Kellett
2010: 396–417, 437–449; Meddens 1985: 214).
Red lines on the rims of drinking vessels, and outlined
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

Figure 7. Chicha-style animal lug incurving bowl (19), exterior

design (28), LIP1 [LU5 704–326]. © F. Meddens.

Figure 9. Viñaque-style MH2 beaker variants (12, 13), feather

design (8) [LU5 1322–39; LU5 739–154]. © F. Meddens.

Figure 8. Chicha-style face neck jar (56), exterior design (3),

LIP1, Chiqna Jota [LU5 704–612]. © F. Meddens.

wavy line designs on open bowls, constitute direct

continuity from the preceding Huamanga material
(Kellett 2010: 397). Common designs comprise
thick-lined horizontally-placed rectangles subdivided
into smaller boxes with centrally placed horizontal
bar fillers (Figure 11). Oval-based designs are
common, on the exterior of bowls and beakers, and Figure 10. Chicha-style molded face beaker (15) LIP1 (band
on the main body of jars in bands placed in vertical design and molded face) (140) [LU5 1208–2]. © F. Meddens.

15
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 11. Chicha-style beaker (8) LIP1 with banded rectilinear
grid with bar fillers (2) [LU5 705–69]. © F. Meddens.
rows or horizontally (Figure 12) (Meddens 1984:
144, Figure 6, 1985: 359, Figure 97). Vertical lines
or ticks on the lips of vessels are also noted.
Qachisqo Ceramics
Qachisqo-style ceramics include a range of tapering
neck jars with diameters greater at the neck than at
the rim, frequent pairs of small vertically placed
strap handles are found on the shoulders of these
vessels, and open bowls are known (González Carré
et al. 1987). Surfaces are roughly smoothed or have
Figure 12. Chicha-style beaker (14) LIP1 with horizontal
banded wavy line and oval designs (86, 11) [LU5 1308-SF273].
© F. Meddens.
16
Figure 13. Qachisqo-style face neck jar LIP1 [LAB AQ 278]. ©
F. Meddens.
a slip covered in a creamy color. Most of the decora-
tive elements comprise modeled and plastic appliqué,
frequently with incised elements. These tend to be
located on the necks of jars, forming parts of coarsely
and thickly modeled faces (Figure 13), as well as
many decorated lug and knob elements like those
found in the Tanta Orqo material. The Qachisqo
assemblages are found in Huancavelica and in the
Department of Ayacucho in the areas of Socos,
Vinchos, Huanta, and Tambo, as well as having
been noted in Andahuaylas (Gomez Choque 2008).
This material is commonly found with Tanta Orqo
and Arqalla objects.
Arqalla Ceramics
Arqalla vessel shapes include variants of jar forms with
a straight or sometimes tapering (converging) neck,
everted rim and rounded lip, globular body, and
rounded to pointed bases (Figure 14). Occasionally
they have strap handles placed above the widest diam-
eter of the body, and jars can be found with small
modeled and sometimes protruding lugs, which are
frequently incised. There are also a range of simple
plate and open bowl forms with flat and rounded
bases. Decoration, which is rare, includes incised
anthropomorphic faces on jar necks, parallel bands
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Figure 14. Arqalla small-sized jar LIP2 [MRHU 384/INC-R-
05; RN 82 040]. © F. Meddens.
of short vertical incised lines as well as unevenly exe-
cuted red painted vertical linear, undulating, and zig-
zag designs.
Arqalla ceramics are found across much of
Ayacucho, Huancavelica, and Apurimac. This material
can be found together with both local provincial Inca as
well as more formal imported Inca-style products. It
constitutes the most clearly defined and most widely
distributed regional style for LIP 2. The various jar var-
iants with tapering necks, characterized by narrower
rim than neck diameters, rounded to pointed bases,
and multiple vertical strap handles of various sizes, con-
stitute the commonest style marker. This material is
hand-modeled, frequently in a mid-brown reduced
paste and often with mica inclusions. Overall, these
ceramics are not highly fired, they are sloppily exe-
cuted, and include large numbers of smaller sized
and miniature variants. There appears to be a trend
towards slightly larger vessel sizes and a reddish slip
or wash for this material for the department of
Huancavelica. The former variant of the style is here
referenced as Arqalla A. From the large numbers of
complete vessels known and from the recognized
archaeological associations as far as these are under-
stood (Bauer et al. 2010; Kellett 2010; Kurin 2016;
Meddens 1994), the most frequent connections for
these vessels are with burials and offering deposits
(Kurin 2016; Meddens 1994).
17
Figure 15. Soras-style face neck jar (56) LIP2 from Chicha Jasa
[AP2–7 456–17/27]. © F. Meddens.
Aya Orqo Ceramics
Aya Orqo vessel shapes include convex- to flat-based
open bowls with vessel walls trending to the
concave. Straight and tapering necked jars with
everted lips, rounded bodies, and vertically placed
strap handles, with flattened or rounded to blunt
pointed bases are common. Face neck jar variants
are also present among this material (Figure 15;
González Carré et al. 1987: 102 top right).
Miniature or reduced size forms are found as are
cups and aryballo derived forms (González Carré
1992; González Carré et al. 1987; Valdez 2002).
The surfaces of these vessels are smoothed and can
have a red slip. Decorative painted motives include
roughly executed black, purple, and brown linear
designs, sometimes in lattice variants (hereafter Aya
Orqo variant A). These designs largely feature on
the exterior of vessel walls. A few modeled and
incised plastic examples comprising anthropomorphic
faces and camelid heads are known.
Aya Orqo occurs infrequently, has a limited distri-
bution, and is known from Huanta, Cangallo, Victor
Fajardo, Parinacochas, and Andahuaylas (Gomez
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Choque 2008; González Carré et al. 1987; Valdez
2002). Some of its pastes and shapes have similarities
with local variations on Inca-style material. In the
Chicha valley, numerous stylistic elements appear to
equate with the pottery group defined as Soras
(Meddens 1985).
Soras Ceramics
The Soras style in the Chicha/Soras valley constitutes a
significant change from the earlier Chicha material.
This pottery is characterized by smudged yellow-
brown wares (Figure 16). Little is decorated and the
few painted designs are very careless in their execution,
comprising undulating lines of varying width as well as
some dot or irregular splotch designs occasionally in
irregular linear bands or cross-hatched motifs. Some
plastic decoration occurs comprising roughly modeled
faces with pronounced lower lips or chin features
(Figure 15). A noticeable proportion of this material
Figure 16. Soras-style (Aya Orqo) tapering neck jar (37) with
two offset strap handles placed above the widest part of the body.
LIP2 from Chiqna Jota [LU5 1551–SF209]. © F. Meddens.
18
Figure 17. Soras-style overfired pottery. © F. Meddens.
is overfired, cindered, and sometimes has cindered
and blistered glassy surfaces (Figure 17), or is associated
with such pastes (Meddens 1985: 227). The latter
appears identical to high-fired gray wares noted for
the Sondondo area present there in the Marke,
Toqse, and Jasapata assemblages. Its occurrence in the
Chicha/Soras area appears to be a late phenomenon.
The Soras style is found together with Arqalla- and
Inca-style material, with the latter including both
locally made variants and imported classic imperial
material. Specific design elements and vessel forms
equate with a subgroup of the Aya Orqo material.
This concerns vessels illustrated in González Carré
et al. (1987: 101 top left [ jar with lattice design];
104 bottom right [as 101]; 105 top left [ jar with
lattice/linear design]; 106 upper two [open bowls,
banded design with multiple amorphous to rounded
filler elements]; 109 bottom [as 106]; 110 bottom
left and right [as 106 and 109]).
Ceramic Analysis
The analysis of the new data presented here and re-
examination of previously recorded material aims to
provide a higher resolution understanding of the
LIP assemblages found across Ayacucho, Apurimac,
and Huancavelica. It sets out to establish if any of
this material can be linked to the historically ident-
ified ethnic groups in this region, particularly the
Chanca, and reviews some of the social and cultural
parameters that the assemblages allow us to access.
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
The data sets comprise a series of ceramic assem-
blages excavated in the early 1980s from sites in the
Chicha valley along the boundary of the departments
of Ayacucho with Apurimac in the former territories
of the LH and early colonial Soras ethnic group (on
the Lucanas/Ayacucho side of the Chicha river), and
the upper Chanca moiety (Hanan Chanca) element
of the Chanca ethnic group situated on the
Apurimac bank of the Chicha river, merging into
Aymara territory at the southern limit of this area
on the same Apurimac side of this watercourse
(Figure 1). This ceramic component derives from
offering deposits and stratified ceramic sequences
dating to the LIP and LH. The groups of material
included were selected because of confidence in the
integrity of the contexts concerned, with low risk of
residuality or contamination, e.g., admixture with
earlier or later cultural or ecofactual components.
They originate from two sites in the Chicha valley
—Chiqna Jota (LU5) in Ayacucho, and Chicha
Qasa (AP2–7) in Apurimac. This confidence proved
to some extent over-optimistic, as more residuality
than anticipated became obvious in the detailed
examination of the ceramics. The assemblages con-
cerned were originally recorded as part of the princi-
pal author’s Ph.D. dissertation work.
The second data set considered comprises LIP and
LH ceramic material present in the collections of the
Ministry of Culture and the Universidad Nacional de
San Cristobal de Huamanga in the city of Ayacucho.
This material derives largely from surface collections
carried out across a series of sites in the
Departments of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and
Huancavelica. Some elements of these collections
were donated by or purchased from third parties
and appear to originate from offering and burial con-
texts. A third data set derives from private collections
from individuals, schools, and colleges in Ayacucho,
Huancavelica, and Apurimac, and material from cur-
rently unpublished excavations and surface collections
across this region. The fourth group comprises
pottery material described and illustrated in a set of
unpublished student dissertations from the
Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal de
Huamanga (Gomez Choque 2008; Gutiérez Correa
19
2014; Huamani Diaz 2014), as well as from pub-
lished material on the results of excavations and
survey work carried out in the Caraybamba,
Aymaraes, area of Apurimac (Van Dalen Luna
2011), and region of Andahuaylas (Bauer et al.
2010). The pottery for both data sets 1 and 2 were
recorded using identical numerical and alpha numeri-
cal variables, meaning that these can be comprehen-
sively compared, whereas the material from data sets
3 and 4 were documented in notebook form and
photographically, or consisted of records originally
generated by third parties.
Chicha/Soras Valley Ceramic Analysis
All the relevant variants for the current analysis have
been coded so that, for example, all open bowl, incur-
ving bowl, face neck jar, short neck jar, long neck jar,
cup-shape variants etc. (Table 1); and oval, circular,
crescent, linear, box/rectangle, and diamond-design
shape variants (Table 2) are appropriately grouped.
Numbering the most similar shape and design cat-
egories closely together clarifies a measure of their
relatedness, making it easier to understand the pre-
sented analysis.
In the previous examination of the LIP Chicha-
style material in the 1980s, 379 diagnostic sherds
were used from vessels from the site of Chiqna Jota,
situated on mid-valley land between the Pachachaca
stream and the Chicha river of which the former is
a tributary. The site is in the province of Lucanas
within the department of Ayacucho.6 The settlement
includes some 200 mostly circular structures,
arranged around patios with occasional large variants
as well as rectangular buildings, and measures some
9.5 ha. The examined material derives from a
ceramic dump excavated in excavation unit 1, com-
prising nine contexts ([702], [704], [704], [705],
[707], [710], [718], [720], [721], and [722]). This
material has been interpreted as a purposefully
placed mound, arranged around and on top of a
large boulder, central to a late MH (MH2) offering
deposit. These contexts consist of individual layers
within this sequence, which have been assigned to
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

Table 1. Vessel shape id codes and descriptions. Table 1. Continued

ID ID
Categories and Descriptions code Categories and Descriptions code
Open bowl/rounded base 1 Necked jar/everted neck, small/miniature, rounded 41
Open bowl/rounded base, everted rim 2 body, rounded base
Open bowl, deep/rounded base, everted rim 3 Necked jar/short everted neck, small/miniature, 42
Open bowl/flat base, convex body to rim 4 multiple (2/3) vertical pierced lug handles, rounded
Dish/flat base, convex body 5 base
Open bowl/flat base, everted rim 6 Necked jar/everted neck, small/miniature, vertical 43
Open bowl/flat base, inclined straight-sided 7 handle on body, rounded base
Open bowl/flat base, inclined straight-sided, ring base 8 Necked jar/everted to elongated neck, small/miniature, 44
Open bowl/inclined straight-sided, flat base 9 multiple (2/3) vertical pierced lug handles, pointed
Handled open bowl, vertical handle lip to body, 10 base
rounded base Necked jar/concave neck 45
Tripod bowl/open 11 Necked jar/concave and carinated 46
Beaker/simple 12 Necked jar/complex contour (carinated) 46.5
Beaker/tall 13 Arybalus INKA 47
Beaker/short and wide 14 Necked jar/convex neck 48
Beaker molded face lug/knob 15 Necked jar/everted convex neck 49
Beaker molded face lug/knob, vertical handle lip to 16 Neck jar/globular neck 50
body Neck jar/globular neck with everted rim 51
Incurving bowl/simple 17 Double necked jar, medium size, rounded body, 52
Incurving bowl/carinated 18 pointed base, multiple (2) vertical handles on body
Incurving bowl/animal lug and lug tail 19 elongated necked jar, carinated 53
Incurving bowl, lug tail 20 Elongated necked jar, concave 54
Incurving bowl/everted rim 21 Elongated necked jar with sharply everted rim 55
Incurving bowl, everted rim, horizontal handles on 22 Face necked jar/simple 56
body (Manka) INKA Face necked jar/shouldered 57
Large incurving handled bowl 22.5 Face necked jar/convex neck 58
Incurving cooking pot 23 Face necked jar/carinated neck 59
Short neck jar/simple and smaller version 24 Handled jug, single vertical handle lip to body, small 60
Short neck jar/simple and smaller version (medium), 25 Handled squat jug, everted neck and rim, vertical 61
horizontal handles handle on body or lip to body, flat to slightly rounded
Short neck jar/simple and smaller version (medium), 26 base
horizontal/vertical handles on body shape very similar Handled squat jug, everted neck and rim, vertical 62
to 14 but cooking pot function handle on body and on lip to body, flat to slightly
Short neck jar/simple and smaller version (medium), 27 rounded base
pointed base and vertical handles on body, spout on Elongated jug, everted rim, single vertical handle on 63
upper part body above handle (looks a little like a body, medium INKA
teapot), cooking pot function Elongated jug, everted rim, single vertical handle lip 64
Spouted necked jar 28 to body, small
Necked jar/simple and medium 29 Elongated jug, everted rim, small/miniature, two 66
Necked jar/short straight neck globular/rounded body, 30 vertical pierced lug handles lip to neck
flattish base with four rod feet, simple and medium Elongated jar, everted neck and rim, single horizontal 67
Necked jar/simple and large 31 loop handle on body
Necked jar/simple and oversize 32 Boot-shaped vessel 68
Necked jar/straight neck, everted lip, small 33 Spoon 69
Necked jar/straight neck, everted lip, medium 34 Figurine/male 70
Short neck jar/tapering neck, small, rounded base 35 Figurine/female 71
Short neck jar/tapering neck, small 36 Figurine/animal 72
Neck jar/tapering neck medium 37 Spindle whorl 73
Neck jar/tapering neck large 38 Spindle whorl/adapted sherd 74
Necked jar/everted neck 39 Pottery production base 75
Necked jar/tapering and everted neck, small/ 40
miniature, multiple (2/3) vertical pierced lug handles,
rounded body, rounded base
Continued

20
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

Table 2. Decorative motif id codes and descriptions.

ID
Category Detail Composition Code Period STYLE
Painted Designs
Slip Cover Body 1 *
Oval Outline only Occasional 2 *
Oval Outline only Multiple 3 LIP1
Oval Outline only Multiple outlined 4 LIP1 Chicha
Oval Outline only Multiple outline in cross 5 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With dot filler—single Occasional 6 LIP2 Soras
Oval With dot filler—multiple Multiple outlined 7 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With dot filler—frequent Multiple, in pairs, outlined 8 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler In pairs 9 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler In chain outlined 10 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler In continuous chain outlined 11 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler In chain outlined, with linear with right-angle 12 LIP1 Chicha
branches at base and top of oval chain
Oval With bar filler Outlined with two parallel chains outlined by 13 LIP1 Chicha
three linears
Oval With bar filler Outlined with two parallel chains outlined by 14 LIP1 Chicha
three linears/paired set with inverse colors
Oval With bar filler Outlined chains with central field comprising 15 LIP1 Chicha
outlined wavy line
Oval With bar filler Outlined by T-bar with horizontal ovals 16 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler Single outlined by linear box 17 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler Multiple outlined by linear box 18 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler Outlined with further oval outlined oval(s) 19 LIP1 Chicha
Oval With bar filler Outlined paired chains with multiple additional 20 LIP1/2 Chicha
bar fillers within outline, external to ovals
Oval With bar filler Multiple outlined in repeated box frame 21 LIP1 Chicha
Oval Single wavy linear Outlined chain 22 LIP1 Chicha
touching outline
Oval Multiple wavy linears Outlined chain 23 LIP1 Chicha
touching outline
Oval Multiple straight linears 24 LIP1/2 Chicha
touching outline
Oval Paired chains with wavy Parallel chains separated by central linear 25 LIP1/2 Chicha
bar which projects outside
of ovals limits
Oval Outlined chain Series of interconnected teardrop shapes 26 LIP1 Chicha
Circle Outlined Circle within circle 27 MH2
Circle Outlined Thick circular central dot outlined with inverse 28 MH2
color circle
Circle Multiple Series/chain 29 LIP1
Circle Outlined Divided eye 30 MH2
Circle Outlined Inner circle divided by two parallel wavy lines 31 MH2
Circle Divided Circle with interior cross not reaching inner 32 MH2
circle
Circle Divided Circle with interior cross not reaching inner 33 MH2 Wari/
circle (pale on paler) with dark band above Vinaque
Circle Divided Cross and single filler dots in four quarters 34 MH2 Vinaque
Circle Divided Cross and single filler dots in two of the four 35 MH2
quarters
Circle Divided Cross and multiple filler dots in three quarters 36 LIP1 Chicha
Continued

21
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

Table 2. Continued

ID
Category Detail Composition Code Period STYLE
Circle Divided Multiple crosses superimposed, two dividing 37 LIP1 Chicha
circle into eight segments
Circle Divided Multiple crosses superimposed, two opposing 38 LIP1 Chicha
colors, dividing circle into eight segments with
occasional bar fillers
Circle Oblique Multiple bar fillers 39 MH2
Circle Line band Circle with interior dot and oblique band line 40 LIP1
Crescent multiple Dot filler 41 MH2 Hua manga
Crescent Multiple Outlined, vertical empty chains 42 MH2 Huamanga
Crescent Multiple/horizontal Outlined, empty chains, alternating tone bands 43 MH2 Huamanga
Crescent Multiple/horizontal Outlined horizontally arranged crescents 44 MH2/
LIP1
Line Thick band Single, almost always part of larger design 45 *
Line band Thick band Across center interior bowl 46 LIP1 Chicha
Line band Thick band Cross across center interior bowl 47 LIP1 Chicha
Line band Thick band Cross outlined across center interior bowl 48 MH2
Line band Thick band Cross outlined with closed terminals 49 MH2 Huamanga
Line band Thick band Oblique cross with outlined horizontal box filler 50 LIP1 Chicha
elements
Line Thick band Under or on lip 51 *
Line Thick band Under or on lip with series of vertical lines 52 LIP1
contained within band
Line Thick band Under or on lip with series of vertical lines 53 LIP1
crossing over limits of band
Line Thick band Under or on lip with series of vertical lines 54 MH2
crossing over limits of band, which are finished
as a series of parallel “u”s
Line Outlined vertical parallel Outline darker, inner parallel outlined lines 55 MH2
from lip lighter
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel 56 MH2 Vinaque
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel, all same dark tone 57 *
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel, alternating thicknesses and colors 58 MH2
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel alternating thicknesses, variable colors 59 MH2 Huamanga
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel alternating thicknesses, variable colors 60 MH2
including thick black/dark band(s)
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel series of equal thickness, 61 MH2
alternating color, alternating with series of
different thickness, alternating colors including
black/dark band(s)
Line Parallel, horizontal Pair of closely spaced darker and thinner bands 62 MH2
above and below a broad wide central band
Line Parallel, horizontal Single wide darker band above and below wider 63 MH2/
lighter central band LIP1
Line Parallel, horizontal & Single wide darker band outlined with thin 64 MH2/
vertical paler bands above and below wider lighter LIP1
central band, with vertical darker outlined in
paler band space dividers
Line Parallel, horizontal & Series of thinner horizontal darker bands, 65 LIP1
vertical separated by pale bands, with a few less pale
bands and occasional bar fillers against a vertical
darker divider band
Continued

22
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

Table 2. Continued

ID
Category Detail Composition Code Period STYLE
Line Parallel, horizontal and Sloppily applied horizontal, or vertical and 66 LIP2 Soras/Aya
vertical oblique bands, undulating Orqo
Line Parallel, horizontal Parallel series of equal thickness, alternating 67 LIP1
color, alternating with series of different
thickness, alternating colors including black/
dark zigzag band at top
Line Horizontal/vertical boxed Thin darker lines separated by thicker wider 68 LIP1 Chicha
lines also with separated fields
Line/band Oblique Dark outlined wider pale band with two lines of 69 LIP2
dot/bar fillers
Line/band Vertical Dark outlined wider pale band with three lines 70 LIP2
of bar fillers
Line/band Vertical White with black dot fillers 71 MH2 Vinaque
Line/band Vertical Dark with pale dot fillers in angled layout 72 LIP1
Line Horizontal Wavy 73 MH2
Line Horizontal Zigzag 74 LIP1
Band Outlined horizontal Zigzag with adjoining triangles with randomized 75 LIP1
bar fillers
Band Outlined horizontal Zigzag with adjoining triangles apposing tone/ 76 MH2
color
Band Horizontal Dark with pale dot fillers 77 MH2
Line Vertical Parallel monochrome bands 78 MH2
Line Vertical Thin parallel vertical dark bands 79 MH2
Line Oblique angle Parallel diagonal alternating color monochrome 80 MH2
bands
Line Vertical Multiple parallel (ish) wavy bands 81 LIP2 Soras/Aya
Orqo
Line Vertical Wavy line outlined with straight linears 82 MH2/
LIP1
Line Vertical Two parallel wavy lines outlined with straight 83 MH2
linears
Line Vertical Two wavy lines in opposing wave pattern 84 MH2/
outlined with straight linears LIP1
Line Vertical Paired wavy lines mirroring each other 85 LIP1
Line Horizontal Wavy line outlined with straight linears 86 LIP1
Line Horizontal Wavy line outlined with straight linears—three 87 LIP1 Chicha
or more in parallel
Line Horizontal Wavy line outlined with straight linears—three 88 LIP1 Chicha
in parallel, central section color inverted from
outer sections
Line Horizontal Central wavy line outlined by thick upper and 89 MH2
lower monochrome bands
Line Horizontal Thick parallel wavy (2) lines outlined by 90 LIP1
different color straight linears
Line Horizontal Thick parallel wavy (multiple) lines outlined by 91 MH2/
different color straight linears LIP1
Rectangle/square Divided rectangle Bar filler 92 LIP1 Chicha
(rectilinear grid)
Rectangle/square Box of six rectangles Bar filler with zigzag bar divider 93 LIP1 Chicha
Rectangle/square Box of four rectangles Bar filler with zigzag bar divider 94 LIP1 Chicha
Continued

23
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

Table 2. Continued

ID
Category Detail Composition Code Period STYLE
Rectangle/square Offset four box rectangles Bar fillers and continuous connection central 95 LIP1 Chicha
lines across offset non-rectangle sections
Rectangle/square Offset four box rectangles Bar fillers 96 LIP1 Chicha
Rectangle/square Offset single box Bar fillers 97 MH2/
rectangles LIP1
Rectangle/square Parallel offset double Double bar fillers 98 MH2
squares
Rectangle/square Divided rectangle Multiple dot fillers 99 MH2
(rectilinear grid)
Rectangle/square Offset divided rectangle Single and multiple dot fillers 100 *
(rectilinear grid)
Rectangle/square Box of six rectangles Empty 101 *
Rectangle/square Horizontal Series of adjoining rectangles 102 *
Rectangle/square Multiple grid Parallel series of lines of boxes with bar fillers 103 MH2 Vinaque
and empty ones (wing feather?)
Rectangle/square Multiple grid Parallel series of lines of boxes with dot fillers 104 MH2
and empty ones at base with parallel outlined
vertical bands (wing feather?)
Rectangle/square Multiple grid Parallel series of lines of boxes with bar fillers 105 MH2
and empty ones at base with parallel outlined
vertical bands (wing feather?)
Rectangle/square Horizontal banded Subdivided rectangle 106 *
Rectangle/square Band, horizontal Vertical series of rectangles with central dot 107 *
filler
Rectangle/square Band, horizontal Vertical series of rectangles 108 *
Rectangle/square Band, horizontal Two curved parallel bands with below series of 109 *
rectangles with interior rectangle filler
Rectangle/square Vertical Oblique cross with 45-degree aligned central 110 MH2
bars between corners
Rectangle/square Vertical Rectangle with central oblique cross with dots 111 MH2
in triangles
Rectangle/square Horizontal Unevenly distributed grid and dot 112 LIP1 Chicha
pattern—representing field system? Associated
with 84
Rectangle/square Horizontal Chequer-box design 113 MH2
Rectangle/square Oblique angle Dark over lighter bands 114 LIP1
Linear Vertical to oblique angle Dots and crescents “randomly” distributed 115 LIP2 Soras/Aya
within outline Orqo
Diamond Multiple chain Outlined 116 DIP1
Diamond Multiple chain and solid Outlined 117 LH Inca
filled
Geometric Band Double set of overlapping “X”s bordered with 118 LH Inca
multiple vertical linears
Geometric Horizontal band Outlined circles within circles on dark ground, 119 LH Inca
alternating multiple rectangles within rectangles
and “X”s with lower register repeating upper of
circles within circles
Geometric Vertical Outlined feathered band design with filled dots 120 LH Inca
at the end of each frond
Geometric Vertical Band and parallel thick lines 121 LH Inca
Chevron Band vertical Variation in color scheme 122 MH2 Wari
Continued

24
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

Table 2. Continued

ID
Category Detail Composition Code Period STYLE
Figure of eight Horizontal Band 123 MH2
Figure of eight Horizontal Band with inner spaces filled with vertical band 124 LIP1 Chicha
Capital “A” with Horizontal Dark band 125 LIP1 Chicha
flattened top
Recurved “S” Horizontal Gray on black 126 MH2 Wari/Black
Decorated
Circle and stepped Horizontal Gray on black 127 MH2 Wari/Black
Decorated
Outlined zigzag Horizontal Gray on black 128 MH2 Wari/Black
and circle Decorated
Rectangle/square Horizontal Double boxed with interior stepped and 129 MH2 Wari/
diagonal design in paler band on whitish Vinaque
background
Figurative Horizontal and profile Humped back (?) mammal with fleur de lis 130 MH2 Wari
appendages
Figurative Horizontal and profile Feline/jaguar 131 LIP1 Chicha
Figurative Profile Camelid 132 LIP1 Chicha
Figurative Prone Frog or toad 133 LIP1 Chicha
Fleur de lis Fleur de lis Fleur de lis appendage 134 MH2
Plastic Designs
Small deep barley Vertical Parallel series 135 LH Inca
seed-sized
indentations
Small deep barley Oblique Parallel series 136 *
seed-sized
indentations
Thumb or finger Horizontal Leaving a raised crescent at the top of each 137 *
impressions impression—in series
Lug or knob 138 MH2/
LIP1
Modeled face E 139 LIP
Modeled face E2 140 LIP
Modeled face E4 141 LIP
Modeled face E8 142 LIP
Modeled face E21 143 LIP
Modeled face E22 144 LIP
Modeled face E11 145 LIP
Animal lug D16 146 LIP1 Chicha
Animal lug D16 147 LIP1 Chicha
Animal lug D2 148 LIP1 Chicha
Animal lug B 149 LIP1 Chicha
Animal lug “J” modeled frog head on rim–lip 150 LIP1 Chicha
Animal face Modeled rabbit/viscacha 151 LIP
Uncertain Modeled uncertain 152 *

the LIP (see below). This group constitutes a 10
percent stratified random sample of the diagnostic
material recorded from these contexts. For the re-
analysis, the diagnostic material from a single
context [704] from the same ceramic dump was
selected for which all the 870 available recorded diag-
nostic sherds and complete vessel profiles were used.
This material has been attributed to the earlier LIP
or LIP1. The analysis predominantly comprised
Chanca- and Chicha-style material, with a small

25
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

proportion of residual Huamanga and Viñaque

pottery. Whether this style can be directly associated
with the Chanca ethnic group remains an unresolved
question, as will become clear.
For comparative reasons, the vessel shape distri-
bution for the 379 sherds of the earlier (1980s) ana-
lyzed sample constituted 29 vessel shapes. Of these,
four open bowl variants totaled 17.7 percent, two
beaker variants 1.6 percent, six incurving bowl types
14.9 percent, 15 necked jar forms 53.5 percent, Figure 19. Chicha-style simple incurving bowl (17) with
with two miscellaneous forms such as spoons, rectangle and bar filler designs (94), LIP1 from Chiqna Jota [LU5
spindle whorls, and figurines constituting 2.3 704–22]. © F. Meddens.
percent. The single most frequent vessel shapes com-
prise open bowls with rounded bases (1) 12.4 percent,
with a modicum of certainty to which specific shape
simple incurving bowls (17) 7.7 percent, simple
the sherd corresponded. Such examples constituted
medium-sized (short) necked jars (29) 17.4 percent,
11.1 percent and 7.7 percent of each group,
and simple face neck jars (56) at 21.4 percent.
respectively.
For the recently reanalyzed group of contexts [704],
For the material from context [704] the motifs
which therefore includes some of the pottery pre-
characteristic of the designs used were defined by a
viously analyzed in the 1980s, the vessel types rep-
limited number of primary base patterns. For the
resented 35 shapes, for which the six open bowl
external decoration of the vessels present, these com-
variants totaled 16.8 percent, four beaker variants
prised external slip 0.2 percent, ovals 24.3 percent
3.3 percent, five incurving bowls 11.3 percent, 18
(Figure 21), circles 0.5 percent, linears 47.9 percent,
necked jar forms 59.9 percent, with a single miscella-
rectangle/square variants 4.4 percent, other geometric
neous form constituting a further 1 percent. The most
types 0.9 percent, curvilinears 3.0 percent, figurative
frequently represented variants are open bowls with
forms 0.5 percent, and plastic designs 2.5 percent.
rounded bases (1) 10.5 percent (Figure 18), simple
For the internal design motifs, these encompass an
incurving bowls (17) 8.2 percent (Figure 19),
internal slip 2.6 percent, ovals 3.3 percent, crescent
simple medium-sized (short) necked jars (29) 23.6
0.7 percent, linears 80.4 percent, box/rectangle/
percent (Figure 20), and simple face neck jars (56)
square 1.3 percent, other geometric variants 0.7
at 23.9 percent (Figure 8). Missing values in both
percent, and figurative elements 2.6 percent.
groups were represented by diagnostic material that
It should be noted that, with fragmented material,
could represent one of several forms but where not
there is a tendency for certain base forms to be
enough of the vessel profile had survived to establish

Figure 18. Chicha-style open bowl with rounded base (1) LIP1 Figure 20. Chicha-style simple medium-sized (short) necked jar
from Chiqna Jota [LU5 706–85]. © F. Meddens. (29), LIP1 from Chiqna Jota [LU5 1328–44]. © F. Meddens.

26
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Figure 21. Chicha-style LIP1 with examples of oval variants (3)
[LU5 705–261], (7) [LU5 706–100], (13) [LU5 728–290], and
(24) [LU5 703–30/32] from Chiqna Jota. © F. Meddens.
27
overrepresented because of the breaking up of the
larger overall designs into smaller, less diagnostic enti-
ties. Complete designs have been divided into mul-
tiple, less easily recognizable sub-elements. These are
not definable clearly enough to confidently attribute
them to their complete original design themes. Here
the linear motifs, which clearly dominate in the stat-
istics, have been significantly influenced by this factor.
Of the diagnostic material, 49.9 percent was deco-
rated on the exterior and 50.1 percent was not deco-
rated, while 17.5 percent was decorated on the
interior and 82.5 percent was not. It should be
noted that, if one adds the nondiagnostic material
into the equation against the 871 diagnostic sherds
and occasional whole vessels, there are 4,898 non-
diagnostic sherds from context [704]. The 523 deco-
rated sherds constitute a much smaller 9.9 percent of
the total decorated diagnostic and nondiagnostic
components (5,768 sherds). This group of material
in many ways presents a clearer picture of the assem-
blage; however, because of the total sizes of the
pottery groups involved it proved impossible to
make these calculations for all the excavated ceramics.
To establish valid comparisons among the pottery
presented here, unless otherwise stated, it is exclu-
sively the diagnostic material that has been included
in the analysis.
The most frequent vessel shapes constituting
Chanca- and Chicha-style variants in the re-analyzed
material from context [704] are further elaborated
below. The round based open bowl (1) ranges from
7 to 28 cm in diameter with the latter being a
single outlier with 70 percent of the diameters
being between 8 and 12 cm (mean = 12 cm,
median = 17.5 cm, SD = 6.5, n = 91). The vessel
walls for this form tend to be straight with the rim
at the lip having a rounded profile. The single most
common exterior decorative design (51), representing
27.3 percent, comprises a horizontal band under the
vessel lip, which on the interior of this form constitu-
tes 15.7 percent. A band under or on the lip with a
series of vertical lines contained within the band
(52) (Figure 22 upper) makes up 9.8 percent, and a
similar band with a series of vertical lines crossing
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

over the margins of the band (53) represents 21.6

percent (Figure 22 lower). Occasional examples are
present that lack the horizontal band (Figure 18).
The single figurative design found on the interior of
these vessels comprises a stylized camelid presented
in profile (132) (Figure 23), which constitutes 5.9
percent of the interior design motifs.
The simple incurving bowls (17) range in diameter
from 6 to 19 cm (mean = 10.4, SD = 2.9, n = 71). Of
this vessel type, 63.4 percent have exterior decoration
of which 9.9 percent comprise oval motif variants,
39.4 percent linear designs, 11.3 percent variations
on the rectangular/square types (Figure 24), and 2.9
percent are other geometric motifs. A total of 26.8
percent have interior decoration with a single
example with an interior slip and the remainder
having either a monochrome horizontal band on
the interior of the lip or alternatively this same band
with groups of thick parallel vertical lines running
from the top of the lip to the base of the band.
Although the incurving animal lug bowl (19)
(Figure 7) makes up only 1.3 percent of the vessel
shapes within this group, it merits detailed descrip-
tion, as this form is both very diagnostic and found
Figure 23. Chicha-style open bowl inclined straight sided with
flat base (7), LIP1, stylized camelid presented in profile (132)
with linear stylized field (?) design, Chiqna Jota [LU5 733–479].
© F. Meddens.
in areas remote from the Apurimac–Chanca polity
heartland. This form ranges in diameter from 9.0 to
12.0 cm (mean = 10.5, SD = 1.2, n = 11), and the
vessel height averages from 6.0 to 7.0 cm.
Protruding from the vessel wall is the neck and
head of an animal, frequently with the head having
a reptilian or bird-like form. The chin of the animal
head is mostly exterior-facing from the vessel wall
(Figure 25) (35); a complete version of this vessel
shape with animal head lug is illustrated in Figure
7. On the opposing side of the vessel, at approxi-
mately the same level as where the neck extends
from, is a bulge or a knob mimicking the tail of the
creature (Figure 7). For the painted exterior design
motifs corresponding to 8.3 percent of this type,
the decoration is uncertain, while 8.3 percent were
ovals, 58.3 percent linears, and 25 percent were rec-
tangle and square variants.

Figure 22. Chincha-style open bowl with rounded base (1),

LIP1, with a band under and/or on the lip with a series of vertical
lines contained within the band (52) [LU5 1445–31], with
vertical wavy line design (85), and a thick band under or on the lip
with a series of vertical lines crossing over the margins of the band Figure 24. Chicha-style simple incurving bowl (17), LIP1
(53), with outlined oval with bar filler design variant (19), Chiqna rectangular/square type (96) [LU5 707–103], Chiqna Jota. © F.
Jota [LU5 733–3]. © F. Meddens. Meddens.

28
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Figure 25. Chicha-style animal lug head examples (19) (LIP2)
from Chiqna Jota [LU5 706–96; LU5 1314–400/401/383]; see
also Figures 5 and 11. © F. Meddens.
The beaker forms (12–16) range in diameter from
6.0 to 12.0 cm (mean = 9.6, SD = 2.2, n = 25). All
have external decoration, of which 8 percent could
not be further defined, 12 percent exhibit oval
designs (Figure 12) (11), 64 percent linear types
(Figure 10) (86), and 16 percent have rectangle/
square variants. Albeit not present in this sub-
sample, across the assemblage there is a frequent
occurrence of a type, which, besides painted exterior
designs, has centrally placed on the vessel wall a
small, mold-made, round and half globular anthropo-
morphic face. This is commonly also painted to
emphasize specific features (see Figure 10).
The simple, medium-sized, short neck jar (25)
ranges in diameter from 10.0 to 20.0 cm (mean =
14.6 cm, SD = 2.6, n = 43). The great majority of
this vessel shape is plain, with only 16.6 percent
being decorated. This decoration, where present,
largely comprises very simple monochrome linear
29
designs with single or multiple bands (45) character-
izing 97 percent of the decorated material, with a
single example of an outlined feathered band design
with dot filler elements at the end of each frond
(120). The latter demonstrates continuity of an
earlier MH design or represents a residual sherd in a
largely LIP context.
With the simple face neck jars (56), diameters
range from 9.0 to 12.0 cm; the base shape tends to
a pointed form, and strap handles are found on the
neck. Where these are small strap forms, they may
mimic ears. They are also found in the form of
pierced lugs connecting with the lip and neck or on
the body, and they are always vertically placed.
These vessels tend to be moderately large, c. 25.0 to
28.0 cm tall. The faces are mold made (Figure 8),
anthropomorphic, and often painted; and the great
majority of this vessel type has external decoration
(81.5 percent), largely comprising paired series of
ovals outlined in bands, which commonly run in
sets of four vertically to diagonally executed elements
across the vessel body (Meddens 1985: 210; and
Figure 8).
Chicha Qasa AP2–7 Excavation Pit 2
A much smaller assemblage of material derives from
stratified deposits from the site of Chicha Qasa at c.
3,500 masl, situated on the Apurimac bank of the
Chicha river, 1 km east of the site of Chiqna Jota.
This site is relatively small, with some 70 largely cir-
cular structures, although a small number of sub-rec-
tangular to oval buildings and one small square
chullpa constructed of Inca-type polygonal stonework
are also present (Meddens 1985). Occupation evi-
dence confirms activity on the site from MH2 to
LH. The assemblage analyzed stems from a small
1.0 × 1.0 m excavation pit excavated in the side of a
path, were erosion exposed a laminated series of com-
pacted stratified layers with significant quantities of
flat-lying cultural material. The sequence derived
from a midden deposit.
The LIP1 part of this material comprises 442
sherds from 19 contexts ([450], [451], [452], [454],
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology

[456], [457], [458], [459], [460], [461], [462],

[463], [464], [465], [466], [467], [468], and
[469]). The styles present largely comprise Chanca
and Chicha as well as some residual Huamanga and
Viñaque elements. This group encompasses 28
vessel shapes. Of these, four open bowl variants
total 21.3 percent, three beaker variants 1.8 percent,
five incurving bowl types 9.7 percent (including the
animal lug bowl (19) form at 1.8 percent), and 16
necked jar forms constitute 49.8 percent. The single
most frequent vessel shapes encompass open bowls
with rounded bases (1) 12.0 percent, simple incur-
ving bowls (17) 4.8 percent, the simple smaller
version of short neck jars (25) 9.0 percent, simple
medium-sized (short) necked jars (29) 6.3 percent,
and simple face neck jars (56) at 21.9 percent. Of
this group, 63.1 percent were plain and 36.9
percent were decorated externally. For the decorated
material, the motifs used were again defined by a
limited number of primary base patterns. The
internal decoration of the vessels present comprises
ovals 15.3 percent (Figure 26), linears 50.9 percent,
rectangles/squares 2.5 percent, other geometric var-
iants 1.8 percent, figurative motifs 0.6 percent, and
plastic designs 6.7 percent. A total of 82.1 percent
were plain on the interior and 17.9 percent were deco-
rated. The internal design motifs include an internal
slip—5.1 percent, ovals—5.1 percent, linears—74.7
Figure 26. Examples of Toqsa material from surface collection
percent, rectangle/square elements—1.3 percent, —Sondondo Valley (received from K. Schreiber). © F. Meddens.
with 13.9 percent carrying motifs that were not
further definable.
Although there are obvious differences between the
early LIP assemblages from excavation unit 1 (context beaker type 0.6 percent, two incurving bowl forms
[704]) from Chiqna Jota (LU5) and excavation pit 2 4.1 percent, and 12 necked jar forms 62.7 percent.
from Chicha Qasa (AP2–7), the similarities are such The single most frequent vessel shape comprises
that they clearly represent variations of the same open bowls with flat bases and a convex body
Chanca- and Chicha-style ceramic tradition covering outline from rim to base (4) 7.7 percent. Three jar
a closely related timeframe. The LIP2 part of the forms stand out, the simple smaller version of short
sequence consists of 169 diagnostic sherds from 12 neck jars (25) making up 17.2 percent, simple
contexts ([436], [438], [439], [440], [441], [443], medium-sized (short) necked jars (29) at 10.3
[444], [445], [446], [447], [448], and [449]). The percent, and simple face neck jars (56) constituting
styles present comprise Aya Orqo/Soras as well as 20.7 percent.
some residual Chanca and Chicha and Huamanga Of this group, 89.9 percent of the exteriors were
material. This group is made up of 21 vessel forms. plain and 10.1 percent were decorated. For the dec-
Four open bowl variants total 18.3 percent, one oration, the designs include ovals—5.3 percent,

30
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Figure 27. Chicha-style oval designs (5) [AP2–7 464–13] and
(9) [AP2–7 466–69], LIP1, Chicha Jasa. © F. Meddens.
Figure 28. LH offering assemblage from Chiqna Jota. © F.
Meddens.
linears—58.8 percent (Figure 27), and plastic designs
involving rudimentary modeled faces—23.5 percent
(Figure 15). In addition to the 169 diagnostic
31
sherds there were 2,044 nondiagnostic sherds from
these contexts. The 33 decorated sherds represent
1.5 percent of the total decorated diagnostic and non-
diagnostic components (2,213 sherds), with 98.5
percent being undecorated.
The shift to a dramatically reduced range of vessel
forms and design motifs, which is evident from this
group, appears characteristic of the changes in
ceramic production for LIP2 in this part of
Apurimac and Ayacucho. Across much of the
Central Andes, there appears to be a general simplifi-
cation in pottery production during this period, such
as has been observed for the north and central coast
(Quilter 2013: 135–136). Fine-ware ceramics on sec-
tions of the south coast, for example, in the Chincha
tradition, give emphasis to utilitarian forms (Quilter
2014: 253). In the highlands, similar reductions in
cultural complexity have been suggested to have
been linked to a cultural secularization, and an
increasing focus on ancestor worship (Quilter 2014:
254). In Apurimac and Ayacucho during LIP2,
these changes appear to be part of a continued
decline in the importance of the elite and the rise of
more egalitarian societal structures (Meddens 2011).
The LH material is made up of 117 sherds from six
contexts ([432], [433], [434], [435], [437], and
[442]). The styles present comprise Aya Orqo/Soras
and Inca as well as provincial Inca variants. This
group encompasses 21 vessel forms consisting of
four open bowl forms representing 12.7 percent,
one beaker type at 0.8 percent, three incurving
bowl variants at 4.2 percent, and 13 jar types at
55.9 percent. Again, three jar forms are present at
elevated frequencies. These comprise the simple
smaller version of short neck jars (25) 17.8 percent,
the simple medium-sized (short) necked jar (29) at
12.7 percent, and the simple face neck jar (56) at
10.2 percent. Of this group, 80.3 percent are plain
on the exterior and 19.7 percent decorated. The
designs consist of linears at 69.7 percent, 4.3
percent are geometric (Inca or provincial Inca-style
designs), with modeled faces representing 8.7 percent.
In comparison with other LH assemblages from the
20 km stretch of valley investigated in the 1980s—
from just north of the small town of Soras to
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
approximately 3 km south of Pampachiri—the small
excavated sub-sample from Chicha Qasa (AP2–7)
appears to present a reasonable reflection of the Inca
impact on local assemblages, with its small admixture
with Inca and provincial Inca-type ceramics.
Late Horizon Assemblages from Chiqna
Jota
The assemblage analyzed here for the LH comprises a
previously partly published collection of material.
The group consists of a set of complete or nearly com-
plete vessels placed in an LH offering context (Figure
28). The vessels used were miniature and small pots
primarily in the Arqalla style, with a smaller group
of Inca pottery shapes, some being decorated in
typical Inca design motifs, with both locally produced
and Cuzco types present (Meddens 1994). The offer-
ing had been placed in an aisle or corridor-type struc-
ture which was initially erected during the MH
(Epoch 2), and had subsequently been abandoned
with the later LH offering context being interpreted
as referencing the ancestors (Meddens 1994). This
offering assemblage was temporally specific and, for
this analysis, the group of complete and near com-
plete vessels has been re-analyzed together with the
associated fragmented material. The latter includes
residual earlier LIP1 Chanca and Chicha material.
The whole group predominantly encompasses
pottery of LIP2/LH Arqalla style with Inca vessel
Figure 29. Inca local version, everted rim bowl (manca) (22)
LH, from Chiqna Jota [LU5 814-SF51]. © F. Meddens.
32
fragments and Soras material (Meddens 1985). It
includes elements that can be designated as Aya
Orco (González Carré et al. 1987). It derives from
LU5 excavation unit 2, contexts [812], [813],
[816], [819], [835], [836], [837], [1400], [1402],
[1404], [1405], [1412], [1413], [1419], [1420],
[1431], [1440], [1442], [1445], and [1463], and
totals 367 complete vessel profiles and/or diagnostic
sherds. The vessel shape distribution for this sample
constituted a significantly increased number of
vessel types being represented, totaling 45 shapes.
This is in part the result of the continued presence
of earlier redundant forms derived from the residual
elements in this assemblage.
The enlarged vessel shape range in comparison with
the LH group from Chicha Qasa (AP2–7) is due in
part to the larger size of the assemblage. The nature
of the offering context and the presence of a varied
collection of material of Inca origin, both locally pro-
duced (Figure 29) and while higher-quality imported
examples, also will have contributed to the greater
Figure 30. Inca Cuzco import, elongated jug, everted rim,
single vertical handle on body (63), exterior decoration, double set
of overlapping “X”s bordered with multiple vertical linears (118),
from Chiqna Jota [LU5 1400–SF215]. © F. Meddens.
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

range of vessel types (Figure 30). Of the shapes

present, six open bowl variants total 13.6 percent.
There was a single tripod bowl example constituting
0.3 percent (this is residual and dates to the MH),
four beaker variants represent 13.0 percent, five incur-
ving bowl types constitute 8.4 percent, 22 necked jar
forms make up 41.0 percent, and five jug variants
constitute 10.6 percent. There are two miscellaneous
forms at 1.9 percent. The most frequent vessel shapes
comprise open bowls with rounded bases (1) at 8.2
percent; open bowls with flat bases, with a convex
body to a plain rim (4) at 4.1 percent; a simple
beaker form (12) at 12 percent; incurving bowls
(17) at 5.7 percent; simple medium-sized (short)
necked jars (29) at 17.9 percent; a small/miniature
tapering to everted neck jar with multiple (2/3) verti-
cal pierced lug handles, a rounded body, and rounded
base (40) (Figure 31) representing 4.1 percent
(Arqalla); and a type (60) or miniature olla with a
short straight neck and two small handles on opposite
sides of the shoulder at 4.0 percent.
Vessel form (61), a handled squat jar with everted
neck and rim with vertical handle(s) on body or lip
to body, and flat to slightly rounded base, is worth
mentioning (Figure 32). Although not frequent (0.9
percent), this represents an Aya Orqo type also
known from the site of Qaqas in the Huanta area
(Valdez 2002: 401, Figure 10).
Figure 31. Arqalla-style plain necked jar with everted neck,
small or miniature size, multiple (2/3) vertical pierced lug handles,
rounded body and rounded base, LIP2/LH, from Chiqna Jota
[LU5 812–SF41]. © F. Meddens.
Figure 32. Vessel form (61) [LU5 1404–SF230], a handled
squat jar with everted neck and rim with vertical handle(s) on
body or lip to body, and flat to slightly rounded base. © F.
Meddens.
For this material, of the 367 diagnostic pieces of
the exterior, 71.1 percent are not decorated and
29.8 percent are decorated. The motifs for the
primary base patterns, pertaining to the external dec-
oration of the vessel forms present, are characterized
by ovals at 12.3 percent, circles at 0.9 percent,
linears at 37.7 percent, rectangles/squares at 8.5
percent, curvilinears at 1.9 percent, and plastic
designs at 3.8 percent.
For the internally decorated vessels, 18.3 percent
are elaborated with painted designs while 81.7
percent are not decorated. With the motifs used,
28.4 percent are oval variants, 52.2 percent are
linears, 3.0 percent are rectangle/square types, while
figurative designs constitute 4.5 percent, all depicting
camelids shown in profile. These broadly coeval
ceramic assemblages constitute a largely coherent
unit, in which vessel forms and associated design
motives are characteristic of the cultural and time-
related context in which they were produced (albeit
unsurprisingly the LIP2 Chicha Qasa [AP2–7] assem-
blage exhibits a degree of variance from the equivalent
Chiqna Jota [LU5] group).

33
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Analogous Assemblages
The analogous groups include the material from the
LIP collections of the Ministry of Culture and the
ceramic laboratory of the Universidad Nacional San
Cristobal de Huamanga, as well as collections of
material from private and school and high-school col-
lections and assemblages shown to the authors of this
article. The latter include the collection of the
Colegio Jose Carlos Arguadas, the privately held col-
lections held in the Casa Artesanal/Micro Museo of
Maximo Sanchez Huincho and the Casa de la
Cultura of Edgar Alindro Media Candiote, as well
as the collection of Edgar Davila Vargas, all in
Lircay. In Huancavelica, there is the collection of
the Museo Regional de Huancavelica, to which we
were allowed access. A large group of excavated
material we were permitted to review came from the
site of Ranrapata (site code IHR, in the annex of
Ccaccasiri, district of Acoria, province of
Huancavelica, department of Huancavelica) thanks
to its project director Nils Ramiro Sulca Huarcaya.
Then there was excavated material from the province
of Vilcashuaman district of Cangallo, shown to us by
its excavator Edison Mendoza M., as well as material
collected by the authors from the site of Usccunta (in
the department of Ayacucho, province of Lucanas).
For the latter, there were 792 diagnostic sherds and/
or complete vessel profiles, which were scanned and
photographed. There was an assemblage shown to
us by Jorge R. Camara Guerrero from the site of
Pukullupata in the Negromayo valley in the province
of Lucanas. Katherina Schreiber provided illustrations
of material collected by her in the Sondondo Valley in
the province of Lucanas. In addition, we made use of
the available published and unpublished material.
Collections from the Ministry of Culture
(Ayacucho) and the Universidad Nacional
de San Cristobal de Huamanga
The materials recorded in the collections of the
Ministry of Culture, Ayacucho, and in the ceramic
laboratory of the Universidad Nacional San
Cristobal de Huamanga include a disproportionately
34
large number of complete or near complete vessels.
These are particularly useful with respect to helping
to indicate the vessel forms for elements of the
more fragmented material. Unfortunately, the prove-
nience is known for only a minority of these complete
pots. The re-analysis of this small assemblage has
resulted in the recognition of a number of examples
of Chanca and Chicha vessels among the Tanta
Orqo and Qachisqo groups, specifically comprising
types of incurving bowls with an animal lug handle
and opposing “tail” type knob (variant 19).
The LIP material held by the Ministry of Culture
and the University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga
in the city of Ayacucho was reviewed in detail using
the same variables used for the ceramic component
analyzed in the 1980s in the Chicha/Soras valley
(Meddens 1985). These assemblages include some
of the same pottery analyzed by González Carré
et al., published in their 1987 Chanca monograph,
as well as other, previously published items; there
are 106 pieces of which 40 are complete or near com-
plete vessels. All have an LIP or LH attribution,
although 60.4 percent cannot be precisely assigned
to the timeframe within the periods covered. This
material is mostly LIP2 in date with a minor com-
ponent pertaining to the LH. Of this assemblage,
5.7 percent can be classified as Tanta Orqo, 7.5
percent as Qachisqo, 21.7 percent as Arqalla, and
4.7 percent as Aya Orqo (following González Carré
et al. 1987). The vessel shapes present are open
bowl types (10 percent), beaker variants (2.5
percent), and incurving bowl types (5 percent).
Among the incurving bowls, 1.9 percent are
Chanca- and Chicha-style animal lug bowl (type
19) examples, these being classified as both Tanta
Orqo (1987: 44 upper illustration) and Qachisqo
(1987: 59 lower-right illustration) by González
Carré et al. (1987). The remainder include 40
percent necked jar types, of which 3.8 percent are
face neck jar variants; there are 3.1 percent jug var-
iants and 1.3 percent miscellaneous forms, made up
of a boot-shaped vessel, a camelid-shaped form, and
a spoon.
A total of 63.3 percent of this pottery was undeco-
rated on the exterior and there were no examples with
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica

interior decoration. Where decorative elements are

present, the principal exterior decoration components
present consist of oval elements (Figure 6) at 4
percent, 0.9 percent circle variants, 11.3 percent
linear motifs, 0.9 percent rectangle/square com-
ponents, and 17.9 percent modeled or mold-made
plastic decoration. With the plastic variants, 1.9
percent represent indentations and impressions, 5.7
percent lugs or knobs, 7.5 percent modeled faces,
1.9 percent animal head-shaped lugs, and there is a
single example of a modeled viscacha head on the
exterior of a beaker. These vessels are relatively
small, for example, the necked jars in the Arqalla cat-
egory range in height from 9.0 to 22.0 cm, with
diameters ranging from 3.0 to 10.0 cm (mean = 5.0,
SD = 2.0, n = 40).
Individual vessels deserving comment include a Figure 33. Chicha-style incurving animal lug bowl (19) with ill-
previously published short straight necked jar with a defined animal head ( probably a reptile) from Muyu Alto (EA12),
globular or rounded body, a flattish base, and four Vilcashuaman/Cangallo. This has probably been identified as
rod feet (González Carré et al. 1987: 45 lower-left Qachisqo (González Carré et al. 1987: 59 lower right). © F.
illustration; see Figure 6). In the 1987 publication it Meddens.
was catalogued as Tanta Orqo, but here has been
re-classified as Tanta Orqo variant B. The original
publication gave it three feet, but re-examination
showed it actually had four. It has extensive banded
oval designs executed in a zigzag pattern around the
body (Figure 6). The shape is unique in the LIP
assemblages reviewed. The paste is pink to beige
with frequent igneous inclusions in the 1.0 mm
range. The decoration is reminiscent of Chanca-
and Chicha-style oval designs, although the vessel
shape and design motif are dissimilar in execution,
color palette, and paste from the aforementioned
style. This vessel and a small group of material with
similar pastes and linear design motifs in comparable
coloring are said to have entered the collection of the
university as a result of a purchase from a huaquero.
This group is stated to have come from Koras in
Figure 34. Chicha-style incurving bowl either animal lug (19)
Acobamba, just east of the village of Huangallaco in
LIP1, or simple incurving bowl (17), with oval design with bar
the department of Huancavelica. Of the three filler (10) from Raqchi Pata (EA22). © F. Meddens.
examples of incurving bowls with animal lug
handles (type 19) (Figures 33–35), with exact paral-
lels in the Chicha valley material, two come from at Muyu Alto (EA12) (Benavides Calle 1976)
the site of Raqchi Pata (EA22) (Benavides Calle (Figure 33), all situated in the province of
1976) (Figures 34 and 35) and the third was found Vilcashuaman and district of Cangallo.

35
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 35. Incurving bowl (19) with animal lug handle from
Raqchi Pata. © F. Meddens.
Chanca and Chicha Style: Spatial
Distribution
Chanca- and Chicha-style ceramics are found in the
Andahuaylas area, the Chicha/Soras valley—in the
region formerly occupied by the Hanan and Hurin
Chanca polities (Bauer et al. 2010)—and in the
Sondondo valley. As far as it is known from the core
area of the Soras polity, the style is found with
greater frequency in the eastern sectors of this ethnic
group. Similar material is also known from the area
of Chalhuanca to the south (Hector Espinosa
Martinez, personal communication), and east of
Chalhuanca in the Caraybamba valley where it is
present in MH2 and LIP1 assemblages, represented
by styles defined as Marka Pata and Caraybamba
(Van Dalen Luna 2011: 172–187). In these assem-
blages, examples of relevant decorated pottery are illus-
trated by Van Dalen Luna (2011: Figures 103b, 108,
115), and derive from sites in the Chahuahuacho dis-
trict and river valley of the same name, and the Rio
Fuarabamba valley (Figure 5).
Further east in the Cotabambas province, also in
the Department of Apurimac and bordering on the
Department of Cuzco, 28 archaeological sites have
been registered (Gutiérez Correa 2014). The site of
Panchama “A” has produced MH (including
Huamanga, Chakipampa, Ocros, and black decorated
examples) and LIP assemblages, although Chanca and
Chicha ceramics are absent. It should be noted that
Arqalla-style examples have been identified
36
(Gutiérez Correa 2014: 132 Figures 41, 42, 137
photograph 60). As noted before, isolated examples
of Chanca and Chicha material are known from the
Vilcashuaman/Cangallo region (Benavides Calle
1976) (Figures 34 and 35).
Andahuaylas and Apurimac
In their review of the archaeology and ethnohistory of
the north-western sector of Apurimac, Bauer, Kellett,
and Aráoz Silva focus explicitly on the area which was
associated with the Hurin Chanca polity of the LH
and earlier colonial period (Bauer et al. 2010). As
referenced above, they define the LIP ceramics they
encountered under the term Chanca ceramics. They
characterize this pottery as having a light-colored
paste with a watery orange or black wash and dull
colors, and confirm that certain designs are carried
over from earlier Wari designs and shapes such as out-
lined wavy line motives on bowls (Bauer et al. 2010:
173). These designs, they note, reflect variants on
Huamanga-style antecedents. Five form classes were
identified, which were made up of bowls, incurving
bowls, small jars, storage vessels, and drinking cups.
The bowls have frequent parallel vertical line
designs on the vessel lip as well as wavy line designs
on the interior (Bauer et al. 2010: 174–175, A8.1
and A8.3; Kellett 2010: 407–417, 437–449), which
equate with design (53). The incurving bowls are
defined as frequently having an orange wash, a thin
band along the vessel lip and exterior linear designs
(Bauer et al. 2010: 176, A8.6). For the Chicha
valley these are part of the simple incurving bowl
type (17) decorated with a linear range of designs
(45–91), most specifically motifs (55), (68), and
(79). Small jars have 3- to 5-cm-high necks, which
on occasion have appliqué faces with some rims
having flaring lips. Storage vessels are of variable
sizes and forms, frequently neckless but also with
necked forms commonly with an orange or black
wash. The kero-style drinking cups are described as
having short flaring rims with vessel depths ranging
from 6.0 to 9.0 cm and dark red and/or black
linear designs on the exterior framing other geometric
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
design fields. Multiple examples of the latter are
known from the Chicha valley assemblages albeit
that some have straight rims and there is a high fre-
quency of mold-produced round faces found centrally
placed on the exterior of these cups (Figure 10). These
are identical to examples illustrated in Bauer et al.
(2010: 178, upper section A8.8). They equate with
design identification numbers (139–145) in the
Chicha valley material. It is suggested here that the
illustrated examples from the Andahuaylas area simi-
larly derive from cups rather than face neck jar cat-
egories as attributed in Bauer et al. (2010: 177–178).
As is clear from the ceramic analysis of the Chanca
and Chicha assemblages, both the vessel forms and
design motif range from the Chicha valley are more
extensive, with larger numbers of complete vessel pro-
files and design motifs than what was defined for the
Andahuaylas area as published to date. This facilitates
both a more comprehensive stylistic and a better tem-
poral definition of the LIP1 Chanca and Chicha
material by the reappraisal of the Chicha/Soras
valley pottery.
Besides the pale paste variants, reduced wares are
also found. The “drinking cups” with their external
outlined banded geometric designs and appliqué
faces appear derived from earlier Viñaque-style ante-
cedents. A significant difference observed between
the LIP1 and LIP2 assemblages from the sites of
Chiqna Jota and Chicha Qasa, respectively, is that
of the former 9.9 percent are decorated whereas of
the latter only 1.5 percent are (see above), considering
both the diagnostic and nondiagnostic components of
these assemblages. A very low frequency of decoration
for the LIP2 styles (Aya Orqo, Soras, and Arqalla) is
apparent across the whole research region (González
Carré et al. 1987). For LIP2 to LH, a case can be
made for a significant decline in vessel embellishment,
which can be noted as a chronological marker.
The Arqalla materials from the Chicha valley do
not include tapering (constricted) neck everted rim-
style jars where the decoration comprises bands of ver-
tical parallel placed incised cuts (made while the paste
was damp or leather-hard) as illustrated by González
Carré et al. (1987: 76; Valdez and Vivanco 1994).
Our conclusion is that these closed pottery forms
37
with exterior bands of incised vertical lined decoration
below the rim should be considered as a separate sub-
style from the principal Arqalla group (further refer-
enced as Arqalla B). These forms and their associated
decorative detail are not frequently found with the
more common Arqalla A assemblages. We consider
it more likely that Arqalla B constitutes a culturally
rather than a temporally distinct group.
The Chanca and Chicha ceramic style can no longer
be associated temporally with the whole of the LIP. It
post-dates the Wari collapse and is associated with
LIP1. It can be found in high concentrations across
the area which later can be identified with that occu-
pied by the Chanca polities extending into territory
associated with the Soras and Aymara groups found
in Lucanas (Ayacucho) and Apurimac, respectively.
Ceramically, this material retains much of the quality
of the MH2 Huamanga style. Occasional examples
of animal lug incurving bowls have been identified in
surface material and private collections in the
Vilcashuaman region (see above). This Chanca- and
Chicha-style material is therefore of a limited geo-
graphic distribution and other immediately post-
Wari moderately high-quality styles can be found in
parts of Huancavelica, Ayacucho, and Apurimac. As
suggested by Kurin (2016), this may reflect variations
in response to the loss of Wari central authority across
this area with some regions managing to maintain a
coherent local political hierarchy and a measure of
elite control, whereas in other sectors the loss of Wari
dominance led to an immediate collapse of social struc-
ture. LIP2 C14 dates are at present more limited than
those with earlier LIP1 associations (Bauer and Kellett
2010; Kurin 2013, 2016: 78, 80, Figure 4a).
Published data are currently insufficient to establish
whether the fewer LIP2-related radiocarbon dates
result from sample bias or whether there was a
reduction in population across Andahuaylas and
Lucanas during this period.
Caraybamba
Archaeological survey and excavations directed by
Pieter van Dalen Luna, some 45 km southeast of
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
the Chicha valley along the Caraybamba river valley,
have similar Chanca and Chicha material. This
includes several incurving bowl examples (Van
Dalen Luna 2011: 172–173, Figure 100 a–g) here
classified as the Marka Pata style of MH derivation.
This equates with incurving bowl type (17) decorated
with linear designs for the Chicha valley with designs
(55), (68), and (79), and similar examples for
Andahuaylas (Bauer et al. 2010: 176, A8.6). Van
Dalen Luna suggests that this component from
Caraybamba dates to LIP1 or to the very end of the
MH. There is a possible fragment of an animal lug
incurving bowl type (19) (Chicha valley motif 88).
This for the Caraybamba valley is attributed to MH
Marka Pata and identified as Huamanga (Van
Dalen Luna 2011: 172–174, Figure 103b);
however, following the Chicha valley sequence it
would be later in LIP1. A single example of an oval
design is present (Van Dalen Luna 2011: 177,
Figure 108), similar to design (103) for the Chicha
valley. An example of a small bulbous round mold-
made face from a cup attributed to the LIP
Caraybamba style is also illustrated (Van Dalen
Luna 2011: 180, Figure 115), again similar to the
Andahuaylas examples of mold-impressed faces
(Bauer et al. 2010: 178, A8.8 upper two) and the
LIP1 Chicha valley design types executed on cups
(Figure 10).
Absolute Dating
As previously noted, the material examined by
González Carré et al. (1987) was phased based on
its associations. Broadly speaking, Tanta Orqo was
found to occur with Qachisqo, and Arqalla with
Aya Orqo and Inca. Tanta Orqo and Qachisqo there-
fore can be assigned dates to the earlier LIP (LIP1)
and Arqalla and Aya Orqo to later in the LIP
(LIP2) and into the LH. The earlier LIP designation
for the Tanta Orqo group is confirmed by its
inclusion of Chanca and Chicha elements and the
derivations of this material, from the earlier
Viñaque and later MH Huamanga styles. It should
be noted that sites where all five styles discussed by
38
González Carré et al. (1987) (Tanta Orqo,
Qachisqo, Arqalla, Aya Orqo, and Inca) are found
together these appear to have had continued occu-
pation from the early LIP through to the LH. The
absolute dates presented by Bauer et al. (2010) and
Bauer and Kellett (2010) for MH and LIP sites in
the Andahuaylas area demonstrate a significant shift
in settlement pattern for sites attributed to MH2
from those credited to the LIP, this change being con-
vincingly dated to the range AD 1000–1100, with
sites moving from valley floor and slope locations to
defendable mountain-top positions (Bauer and
Kellett 2010: 95–96, 101–103; Kellett 2010).
Five organic samples for carbon dating were ident-
ified among the material studied for this article as
being from primary and secure contexts, and were
submitted to the Scottish Universities
Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) radiocar-
bon dating laboratory in Glasgow. These samples
derived from selected contexts excavated in the
1980s and targeted where possible residues adhering
to pottery, or restricted life-cycle plant material
(seeds or annuals). Of the samples identified as suit-
able for dating comprising pottery with charred resi-
dues, only one proved suitable for further
assessment for C14 processing. All plant material
was identified prior to dating (Hara and Hastorf
2016). The contexts for dating were selected to
provide a terminus post quem, or to provide a date
for a context deemed to have been formed in a rel-
evant late MH, LIP, or LH event.
The sequence of material from context (704) from
the dump deposit excavated in unit 1 at Chiqna Jota
(LU5) was part of a large, rapidly deposited accumu-
lation of broken pottery with occasional complete
vessels and evidence for vessels having been broken
in situ. The material was predominantly made up of
Chanca- and Chicha-style pottery with occasional
earlier residual Huamanga and Viñaque-style frag-
ments. This extensive deposit formed part of a
mound of dumped material at the center of which
was a large boulder. This sequence overlay at its
base a layer of rocks which in turn covered a level of
silty loam into which had been placed a group of
complete vessels. These comprised several large
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
cantaros or jars as well as bowls, a shouldered face neck
jar (57) (Figure 36), a broken figurine (70) (Figure 3),
a large cantaro half-filled with 7 kg of magnesium sili-
cate, several large obsidian flakes, and a large retouched
obsidian blade as well as a hearth in a pit filled with
layers of different colored ash, some burnt animal
bone, broken pottery, and a layer of carbonized grass.
The complete pottery vessels and associated broken
pottery in this basal deposit comprised Huamanga-
style material (Meddens 1985, 1991).
As already noted, pottery fragments with a carbo-
nized organic deposit from context (704) were sub-
mitted for a C14 date to SUERC. Unfortunately,
the sample contained insufficient carbon to produce
Figure 36. Huamanga-style shouldered face neck jar (57) with
cruciform design (49) from Chiqna Jota [LU5 733–91]. © F.
Meddens.
39
a date. Further samples were submitted, one from
the layer of carbonized grass from the hearth associ-
ated with the Huamanga-style material, this to
provide a terminus post quem for the overlying
Chicha-style material. It produced a date of 1206 ±
24 B.P. (SUERC-68564 GU41471) cal AD 740–
889 (95.4 percent). A second sample from context
(704) was selected comprising a carbonized maize
kernel. This produced a date of 1230 ± 29 B.P.
(SUERC-69043 GU41878) cal AD 751–882 (95.4
percent). Samples were submitted for contexts
(813)—sample number 80–50—and (836) small-
find <105> a small Arqalla-style jar-shaped vessel,
consisting of carbonized wood, from excavation unit
2 at Chiqna Jota (Meddens 1994), the former ident-
ified as Buddleja sp. or quishwara and the latter as
Polylepis sp. or queñua (Hara and Hastorf 2016). As
noted above, this material has been attributed to a
LH offering deposit, placed in an earlier MH struc-
ture (Meddens 1994). They respectively produced
dates of 778 ± 29 B.P. (SUERC-70513 GU42340)
cal AD 1280 (95.4 percent) and 542 ± 30 B.P.
(SUERC-70514 GU42341) cal AD 1355–1436
(95.4 percent). Context (813) comprised a brown-
gray fine silty soil deposit with a significant >10
percent grit component, quantities of charcoal and
numerous large rocks as well as miniature and small
pottery vessels. Context (836) was a very dark
brown, friable sandy silt matrix around a rubble fill
with some small and miniature pottery vessels. The
latter included the remains of collapsed roofing and
wall elements of the building within which this fill
was located.
Although the carbonized grass gave a date in the
expected range for MH2 Huamanga-style material,
the date from the carbonized maize kernel from
context (704) was earlier than expected. The C14
dates published in Bauer et al. (2010) for the LIP
Chanca material range from cal AD 1000 to 1400,
with the nine uncalibrated dates for Chanca phase
sites in the Andahuaylas area ranging from AD 934
± 32 to AD 1124 ± 30 (Bauer and Kellett 2010:
80). This comparative material clearly suggests that
the date for context (704) is too early and is likely
to derive from residual charcoal in this deposit.
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Whether this residual component entered this context
accidently or on purpose is unclear, although the
rapid deposition process indicated by the presence
of complete and in situ broken vessels alludes to a
purposeful nature of its deposition as opposed to
the gradual accumulation of a midden deposit. As
this sequence is interpreted as representing a specially
placed accumulation, the inclusion of what could be
considered earlier ancestral elements within it—con-
sisting of earlier charred and carbonized matter—
would be appropriate and could be supported by
the presence of residual Huamanga and Viñaque
ceramics.
The date for context (813) (gallery fill) of cal AD
1280 again appears too early for the LH offering
deposit associated with it. The presence of residual
LIP pottery from this context as well as the date
itself suggest that the soil matrix surrounding the
miniature and small vessels consisted of earlier
midden material brought in for the sealing of the
offering event. The date associated with small find
<105> context (836) of cal AD 1355–1436 is likely
to be consistent with the dating of the offering.
This date, which could correlate with the early LH,
agrees with the Inca and Provincial Inca ceramic com-
ponent associated with these deposits and supports an
early LH origin for this event. The incorporation of
the Soras territory within the lands controlled by
the Inca state, based on ethnohistorical data, is
thought to have occurred during the reign of
Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (Meddens and Schreiber
2010: 127–131). The new dates reported on here
support Bauer and Kellett’s assertions for a late-
tenth- or eleventh-century end date for Huamanga
and Viñaque pottery at MH valley floor sites, and
an LIP2 and LH one for mountain-summit sites
associated with Chanca and Chicha as well as
Arqalla- and Aya Orqo-style assemblages (Bauer and
Kellett 2010).
Comparisons with the Cusco Region
Considering the prominence given to the Chanca in
Inca mythology with respect to the foundation of
40
the Inca empire, it is important to review the accounts
of the warfare which formed such a pivotal aspect of
the expressed Inca beliefs. It is important in this
context to briefly examine the development of the
Cusco region during the LIP and early LH. The
ceramic style dominating the Cusco basin during
the whole of the LIP is Killke and Killke-related
(Bauer and Alan Covey 2004: 74). Killke pottery is
characterized by coil-built bowl and jar forms, with
the pots largely fired in oxidizing conditions (Ixer
et al. 2014). The decoration encompasses geometric
designs executed in red and black bands, usually out-
lined in two or three black lines. Nested triangles and
cross-hatched motifs are common (Bauer and Alan
Covey 2004: 74–75). Many sub-styles exist; these
have been termed Killke-related and include Lucre
and Colcha. These have been linked to localized pro-
duction centers and cultural and political traditions
(Bauer and Alan Covey 2004: 75–76). Radical
regional settlement change occurred in the Cuzco
basin around AD 1000. Significant population
growth typified this, with both established valley
bottom sites expanding as well as new settlements
appearing in the southern Cuzco basin. The northern
basin saw large villages being established and agricul-
tural systems expanded, while the Oropesa area was
largely abandoned (Bauer and Alan Covey 2004:
76–77).
Both the increasing populations and growing agri-
cultural potential resulted in significant intensification
of the power base of the resident elite (Bauer and Alan
Covey 2004: 76–77). This set the scene for the sub-
sequent Inca polity’s expansionist policies. The site
of Cuzco itself has been confirmed to have had signifi-
cant, complex, and sizeable pre-Inca antecedents
(Bauer and Alan Covey 2004: 77–78; Farrington
2013). The Cuzco region—like Huancavelica,
Ayacucho, and Apurimac—demonstrates consider-
able variation in the detail of local development,
with extensive competition between resident polities
(Bauer and Alan Covey 2004: 79–87; Covey 2003;
Heffernan 1996), which eventually reached its pinna-
cle in the successful consolidation of the Inca state.
These developments in the Cuzco basin demonstrate
this region operated at a significantly more complex
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
and more highly developed level of social, political,
and economic organization than anything that was
taking place at this time in the Huancavelica,
Ayacucho, and Apurimac region. The notion that
the LIP2 Chanca posed a credible threat to the early
Inca state therefore should be considered as unlikely
(Bauer et al. 2010; Bauer and Kellett 2010;
Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari 2005).
Discussion
Significant variation exists in the LIP1 pottery styles
across the Huancavelica, Ayacucho, and Apurimac
region. There are several distinct style groups, which
by and large appear to derive a common origin in
the Huamanga- and Viñaque-style assemblages.
Huamanga may itself persist in the Huanta and
Ayacucho area and may be in part contemporaneous
with these other LIP1 ceramics (e.g., Tanta Orqo,
Qachisqo, Chanca and Chicha, etc.).
The derivations or borrowings evident in the cul-
tural assemblages attributed to LIP1 from
Huamanga-style predecessors are multiple and fre-
quent. These include among the vessel shapes
necked jars, face neck jars, bowls, cups, and—
among the rarer forms—a spouted vessel type
(Ochatoma Paravicino and Cabrera Romero 2001:
176–177 [Ollas con vertedera cuencos del estilo
Huamanga, Collecion particular: Celia Galvez de
Verbist—top left]), which somewhat resembles a
teapot (type 27). This example, although uncom-
mon, seems to have a considerable longevity with
an LIP2 example being known (Figure 37). With
respect to the design motifs, outlined bands and
wavy line variants are common continuities in the
early LIP1 Chanca and Chicha style. Similarly, a
Viñaque-derived shape (a cup/kero) with rectilinear
grid motifs accompanied by a filler element also con-
tinues in the LIP1 Chanca and Chicha style. A signifi-
cant amount of additional work remains to be done,
but it is certainly possible that these LIP1 assemblages
and their regional variations reflect a degree of ethnic
differentiation across the region.
41
Figure 37. Aya Orqo-style jar (teapot shape) (27), LIP2 without
provenience [MRHA-054/INC RN-81710]. © F. Meddens.
The distribution of the LIP2 ceramic traditions
throughout the departments of Ayacucho,
Huancavelica, and Apurimac, with the data available,
reflects only a broad expression of the known ethnic
groups and political divisions for this period across
these three departments. There are strong indications
that further examination of local assemblages will lead
to a higher resolution of cultural entities and possibly
a narrower definition of ethnic boundaries. Looking
at the broader aspects of this, including the lithics
assemblages and architecture, there appears to be a
common socio-political equivalence, in terms of
material culture, across this territory for the LIP
where these ethnic groups have a materially
common origin.
The Tanta Orqo material has significant stylistic
parallels with the Chanca and Chicha and Toqsa
assemblages. The painted decorative designs, particu-
larly the motifs comprising chains of ovals, stand out
as a commonality across these groups. Face neck jars
with round mold-made faces (Figure 38a and b),
ovals and wavy line-based geometric designs are also
matched. The incurving animal lug bowls are indis-
tinguishable across the stylistic groups (see González
Carré 1992: 142, Figure 23c and Meddens 1991:
226, Figure 11 for a Tanta Orqo and Chanca and
Chicha examples) (Figure 7). The association in the
Andahuaylas and Lucanas–Apurimac (Chicha/Soras)
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 38. (a) and (b) Tanta Orqo round, mold-made face from
face neck jar. © F. Meddens.
regions of the oval design variants with the use of
casually framed wavy line designs (Figure 12) is
noted.
Framed wavy line motifs are very commonly found
in the Huamanga style (Figure 39) and their qualitat-
ively slightly better execution than is observed in the
Tanta Orqo and Toqsa material suggests a slightly
earlier date for the Chanca and Chicha assemblages
than for their Tanta Orqo equivalents. This is sup-
ported by the stratified sequence of LIP1 ceramics
from the site of Chicha Qasa in the Chicha/Soras
valley, where the pottery progressively becomes of
poorer quality and execution later in the succession.
Alternatively, the stronger stylistic links with
Figure 39. Huamanga-style open bowl, MH2 with outlined
vertical wavy line design (83) [LU5 1342–164/163/170/195/
203]. © F. Meddens.
42
Huamanga material in these assemblages may indicate
a stronger regional survival of these precursor designs
in eastern Ayacucho and across tracts of Apurimac.
The Tanta Orqo assemblages include design var-
iants absent from the Chanca and Chicha and
Toqsa groups, particularly those comprising
modeled and incised motifs (González Carré et al.
1987: 48), encompassing incised outlined bands of
series of small impressed circles. The divergent distri-
bution of Tanta Orqo from Chanca, Chicha, and
Toqsa requires further investigation. The apparent
lack of overlap within the south-central and north-
eastern areas of the distribution range (Figure 5) is
the result of insufficient systematic archaeological
work having been carried out in the area concerned.
From the re-evaluation of parts of the material first
looked at by González Carré et al. (1987), it
appears that at least some of this collection now can
be classified as Chanca and Chicha; the dispersal
pattern may be indicative of long-distance population
shifts anchored in a mitimae model, or a temporal
difference between the assemblages. A fanciful
notion may be to link it in part with the Inca
Chanca conflict mythology where a Chanca popu-
lation shift into the jungle territory on the eastern
Andean slopes is described (Garcilaso de la Vega
1723 [1609]: book 3, XXVI–XXVII, 165–166).
This would be specifically relevant for the north-
central part of the distribution range (Figure 5).
Miniature “Chanca” ceramics (which must now be
classified as Arqalla) have been reported in a cave
burial in the Andahuaylas region (Kurin 2016: 85,
Figure 4.7), as well as in excavations of a group
burial at the large Chanca site of Achanchi in the
Chanca territory, (Kellett et al. 2015). Neither the
Charrangochayoc cave in Lucanas, nor the Cruz
Muqu burial assemblage in the Sarhua district of
western Víctor Fajardo, have such objects (Meddens
and Branch 2010: 158–166). The illustrated vessels
in Kurin (2016) show a characteristic group of
Arqalla A. This type of miniatures has been discussed
in some detail previously (González Carré et al. 1987;
Meddens 1994; and this article) and their cultural
association with other datable ceramic traditions has
consistently been referenced as being with imperial
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
or provincial Inca and/or local styles imitating Inca-
style ceramics (González Carré et al. 1987;
Lumbreras 1975; Meddens 1984; Vivanco
Pomacanchari 2001, 2002). The C14 dates reported
on above regarding the Arqalla-type material again
confirm an LIP2 to early LH date. The link
between these types of vessels in Apurimac with
burial (Kurin 2016: 85) and offering contexts
(Meddens 1994) confirms that these miniature and
small ceramics had a ritually-charged aspect to the
role they played. The AD 1160–1260 dating of the
Pucullu burial cave reported by Kurin (2016) suggests
that the miniature vessels found here were added to
this ancestral tomb assemblage at a much later LH
date as part of a continuing custom of ancestor
worship. The distribution of the Arqalla A style
and, indeed, Arqalla miniatures and small-sized
vessels across the departments of Huancavelica,
Ayacucho, and Apurimac (González Carré et al.
1987; Matos Mendieta 1960), may reflect ethnic
variability across the larger region.
The Aya Orqo material has commonalities with the
Soras- and Jasapata-style material in vessel forms
(Valdez 2002) as well as in some of their casual
designs (Figure 40), although like the earlier
Chanca and Chicha material the Soras variants lack
Figure 40. Aya Orqo painted design (39) from material
recorded in 2016 in Ayacucho and Chiqna Jota examples [LU5
1342–542/614]. © F. Meddens.
43
any use of modeled and incised motifs other than
occasional hand-modeled faces on the necks of jars
(Figure 15). Clear instances of Chanca- and
Chicha-style pottery have been identified across the
Vilcashuaman and Cangallo provinces (Muyu Alto
[EA12]) (Benavides Calle 1976) (Figure 34), and
EA22 Raqchi Pata (EA22) (Benavides Calle 1976)
(Figures 35 and 36); however, these are found only
as isolated examples within larger assemblages. This
type of material is not found further to the northwest
from sites around the Ayacucho valley (Huamanga
province), in the Huanta area (Huamani Diaz
2014; Lumbreras 1975; MacNeish et al. 1981), or
across the Department of Huancavelica ( personal
observation). Again, Chanca- and Chicha-style
material is absent from the south-west and west of
Ayacucho, such as the provinces of Victor Fajardo
and Huancasancos ( personal observation), the
region around Puquio (Vivanco Pomacanchari
1996), and the Lower Negromayo basin in Lucanas
province (Camara and Roberto 2015).
The territorial boundaries of the Chanca polity as
defined during early colonial times are relevant in
this context. Contrasting these boundaries with the
distribution of the Chanca and Chicha pottery style
where this is present in uniform assemblages with
little or no admixture with other material allows us
to argue that this style could reflect a Chanca ethnic
identity. The area from which some of the pottery
samples derive, in particular the material from the
sites of Chicha Qasa (AP2–7) and Chiqna Jota
(LU5), is relevant here. These two sites were located
on either side of the projected boundary between
the LIP2/LH Chanca and Soras polities, respectively.
The reference in the 1561 document discussed by
Julien (see above) to the settlement of Ayachica, pur-
porting to date back to the 1539 Pizarro land grant,
would be linked to the modern district and colonial
authority of Pampachiri. This has been identified as
the modern settlement of Chicha, located on the
west bank of the Rio Chicha in the province of
Lucanas and the Department of Ayacucho (Kurin
2016). A local informant in the early 1980s (Don
Nicanor) indicated that the-then hamlet of Chicha
was a recent settlement dating back no more than
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
several decades, indeed he built the first house of what
was to become this settlement.
Chicha is situated on the margin of the ancient
settlement of Chiqna Jota, and less than 0.5 km
south of the LH site of Iglesia Chayoc. Chiqna Jota
was occupied from the MH to at least the later LH.
In 1586, this sector formed part of the repartimiento
of Atunsora or the encomienda of Hernando
Palomino under the jurisdiction of the city of
Huamanga, and would have been a division of the
area reduced under the village of San Pedro de
Larcaya (the modern community of Larcay), occupied
by people who thought of themselves as Soras (de
Monzón 1965 [1586]: 220–248).
Pampachiri was in Chanca territory, and from early
colonial times to the present constituted the political
center of control for this sector, east of the Rio
Chicha. It was part of the department of Ayacucho
in the later Republican period when, as now, the
Chicha river constituted the provincial boundary
(Paz Soldan 1865: map of Ayacucho). Pampachiri
formed the reducción village in the province of
Andahuaylas on the east side of the Chicha river,
and it is referred to in the 1609 chronicle of
Guaman Poma de Ayala (Guáman Poma de Ayala
1980 [1583–1615]). It clearly has earlier roots as evi-
denced by the very early colonial church present in
the village (Barnes 1986; Hyland 2010), indeed late
prehistoric and early colonial offering and burial
remains were identified in the early 1980s on the
eastern margin of the village as has the early LIP1
site of Chumayoc (AP2–6) immediately to the north.
As a toponym, “Ayachica” comes perhaps closest to
the designation of the present hamlet of Ayapampa,
which is situated among an important group of carved
stones of LH date (Meddens 2006). Alternatively, the
site of Chicha Qasa may be an appropriate candidate as
it was occupied in the LIP and LH, although this site
may be a little too far south and may have been within
the territory of an Aymara mitimae. Ayapampa was occu-
pied in the early colonial period as evidenced by several
late-sixteenth-/early-seventeenth-century olive oil jars
in a collapsed building here.7
The Chanca- and Chicha-style pottery assemblages
across the purported ethnic divide between Soras and
44
Chanca polities from the LIP into early colonial
times do not demonstrate archaeologically significant
or identifiable differences and therefore the territorial
demarcation between ethnic Soras and Chanca
people cannot be extended back into LIP1 using cer-
amics alone. It seems that this ceramic style equivalence
indicates a closer linkage in identity between the Soras
and Chanca polities or their predecessors than can be
extrapolated from the ethnohistorical sources.
The end of the MH period in the central Andes is
marked by the large-scale abandonment of sites across
this region (Bauer and Kellett 2010). The current evi-
dence suggests there is a degree of variability in the
region with certain valleys demonstrating a noticeable
continuity of occupation. For example, in the Chicha
valley, the site of Chiqna Jota (LU5) was continu-
ously occupied from MH2 through the LIP and
LH, and Tincoq (AP2–18) was occupied from
MH2 into LIP1. Where continuity exists, there is
clear evidence for stylistic differentiation of the local
pottery styles from the preceding MH ceramic tra-
dition. The exception to this, perhaps unsurprisingly,
may be represented by the later Huamanga pottery
style at sites in the Ayacucho and Huarpa valleys, as
it originated in this region and therefore had strong
local roots. Evidence for its potential longevity has
been demonstrated by Finucane et al. (2007) in
their analysis of material from the Ayacucho and
Huarpa valleys derived from burial contexts, where
C14 dates indicate a much longer survival for
Huamanga-style ceramics than previously assumed,
with elements of this tradition surviving to as late as
AD 1300 (Finucane et al. 2007). This continuity is
observed at Huari, Azangaro, Posoqoypata, and
Qasapampa (Finucane et al. 2007), as well as numer-
ous other sites across the Ayacucho and Huanta
region (Pérez Calderón 2013: 165).
Various published sources suggest that the ceramic
styles subsumed under the LIP Chanca tradition have
their origin in the department of Huancavelica
(González Carré 1992: 13, 75–78; González Carré
and Pineda 1983). The reason for this notion resides
in part in the fact that the Pacarina of the Chanca
peoples in an early chronicle source is said to have
been the lake of Choclo Cocha in Huancavelica
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
(Cieza de León 1984 [1553]: XC, 239). This interpret-
ation is founded on ethnohistorical mythology (Bauer
et al. 2010: 6–9). The area around Choclo Cocha is
devoid of MH or LIP1 cultural material ( personal
observation of the authors). González Carré references
the presence of 11 LIP Chanca sites (1987) near the
lake, which comprise the remains of burials from
which pottery in all four Chanca styles8 has been ident-
ified (1992: 76, 78). This would therefore include
material covering the whole of the LIP, from early to
late. According to González Carré (1992: 78), the pres-
ence of LIP1 material confirms that this area represents
the point of origin for the Chanca ceramic traditions.
The earliest archaeological survey in the area around
the lakes was carried out in November 1945 by Julio
C. Tello’s assistants, Don Pablo Carrerra, Genaro
Farfán, and Marino Conzales. They encountered
caves and rock shelters which included human and
animal bone remains, as well as a shrine, with circular
structures (which could be related to animal husbandry
or pastoralist activities). The circular features comprise
a small number of what appear to represent temporary
corrals and small shelter-type structures (Carrerra et al.
2014 [1945–1946]: 11–14). A derivation of the
broader Chanca tradition ceramic styles from this
region on the current evidence appears unlikely or
unproven.
The scarcity of permanent occupation sites (unsur-
prising, considering the area’s altitude with the lake
being at an elevation of over 4,500 masl), and the
more nuanced picture presented by the four pottery
groups (where each group appears to include various
regionally specific styles), supports an alternative
interpretation. Tombs and offering evidence may
derive from distant populations rather than a local
origin. This indicates an alternative explanation to
that of the Chanca origin myth, as also confirmed
in Bauer and colleagues’ discussion of this mythology
(Bauer et al. 2010: 609).
Conclusions
The preceding discussion suggests that several existing
hypotheses about the Chanca and neighboring ethnic
45
groups require significant re-evaluation and further
research. Thus, the idea that the Chanca nation’s
origins were centered on the area of Coclo Cocha
(lake) in Huancavelica is not supported (Bauer et al.
2010: 6–9). It has been suggested that the collapse of
the MH Wari state can be attributed to, or may have
been associated with, a confrontation between the
Wari state and the Chanca ethnic group (Lumbreras
1959, 1974: 233; Rostworowski de Diez Canseco
2004: 23–30; Zuidema 1989 [1967]). The overlap
of the ethnic territory of the later LH and early colonial
Hanan and Hurin Chanca ayllus with the distribution
of a high-density incidence of the Chanca and Chicha
pottery tradition, shading into Soras and Lucanas/
Rucanas lands, needs to be considered. This pottery
style retains much higher qualitative characteristics
than what follows in LIP2, suggesting a survival of rela-
tively cohesive polities across the region following the
disintegration of the Wari state. Whether this led to
competition and potential conflict between late
Huamanga style—using peoples in the Ayacucho
Huanta area—or alternatively Killke and Lucre—
using peoples in the Cusco region—remains uncertain
at present. The later LIP2 Aya Orqo and Arqalla tra-
ditions have a much wider distribution than the
earlier Chanca and Chicha style and its linked settle-
ment pattern suggests a much less cohesive, integrated,
and coherent social structure for this later period.
There is no evidence for any social or political elite
nor for high status or monumental religious architec-
ture across Apurimac, Ayacucho, and Huancavelica
during the LIP2. The archaeological evidence suggests
the area was occupied by numerous competing groups,
which may have coalesced at times when common
stress factors favored this, but which did not constitute
complex, state-level, hierarchically organized society.
Therefore, the Chanca were unlikely to have rep-
resented a threat to any early or proto-Inca state devel-
oping in the Cusco region (Bauer et al. 2010; Meddens
2011; Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari 2005).
Until recently, a commonly accepted scenario for
the demise of Wari was that it happened rapidly
with widespread abandonment of Wari settlements,
particularly in its heartland, followed by the develop-
ment of a new LIP demographic pattern with
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 41. Tanta Orqo material from Huancavelica in the Koras domain. © F. Meddens.
settlements being located on defendable hill and
mountain-top positions; this model needs further
examination (Lumbreras 1974: 233, 1975;
González Carré 1992; González Carré et al. 1987;
Meddens and Schreiber 2010; Schreiber 1993).
Although Bauer and Kellett (2010) have a clear, tem-
porally defined shift of sites from the valley bottom
and slope locations in the Andahuaylas area, the
Chicha valley provides a more complicated picture
with both new sites being established as well as pre-
existing ones successfully continuing to be occupied
and expanding across the MH2 to early LIP divide.
The Wari collapse is accompanied by a simplification
of the societal structure with the loss of a definable
elite, a qualitatively more constrained material
culture, and the loss of both elite and religious archi-
tecture (González Carré et al. 1987; Meddens 2011).
Although the demographic shift to defendable moun-
tain-top settlements for the LIP seems broadly
correct, as does the simplification of material and
46
societal structure, recent thinking sees a more varied
pattern with the Wari loss of central control. For
LIP1 and MH2, the disintegration of Wari state
organization appears to have been followed on
occasion by a post-Wari localized revival and survival
of relatively complex hierarchically organized ethnic
groups under the leadership of kuraka-like political
structures. This is the case in the Chicha valley area,
as well as the Ayacucho and Huanta region
(Finucane et al. 2007; Pérez Calderón 2013) and
parts of Huancavelica, such as the Ranrapata area
(Nils Ramiro Sulca Huarcaya and Roy Murillo, per-
sonal communication).
A varied range of insular Huamanga- and Viñaque-
derived ceramic styles can be identified across
Ayacucho and Huancavelica, subsumed under what
González Carré identified as an LIP1 ceramic tradition
titled Tanta Orqo (González Carré 1992: 58; González
Carré et al. 1987). This, we conclude, is more wide-
spread and represented among its assorted localized
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Figure 42. Koras-style LIP1 jar (Tanta Orqo) [LAB AQ180]. ©
F. Meddens.
Figure 43. (a) and (b) Tanta Orqo material (LIP1) from
Ranrapata. © F. Meddens.
traditions including from Apurimac, the Chanca and
Chicha, and Toqsa material from Lucanas, as well as
other distinctly local subgroups from Ayacucho
(Lucanas), recognizable in the Negromayo valley
(Figure 41), from Apurimac in the Caraybamba assem-
blages, and from Huancavelica in the Koras (Figures
47
6a,b and Figure 42) and Ranrapata domains9 (Figure
43a,b and Figure 44).
A definable pottery tradition that, at present, can be
most directly associated with the area known for the
LIP2 and the LH to have been the territory occupied
by the Chanca polities, as evident in LIP pottery
styles across the research area, is limited to the LIP1
assemblages. Here the Chanca and Chicha material
most closely follows the historically defined distri-
bution of the upper and lower moieties of the
Chanca ethnic group. These comprise the Chanca
and Chicha styles as described in this article and as
originally identified by Meddens (1985) and later
designated Chanca by Kellett (2010: 386–541) and
Bauer et al. (2010). Outside of this core area this
material is found in appreciable quantities in the
Lucanas province of Ayacucho in the zone during the
LIP2 and LH closely associated with the Soras ethnic
group. A variant of this material, identified as Toqsa
(Figure 26) by Schreiber, is found in the Sondondo
valley. Isolated parallels of the Chanca- and Chicha-
type pottery have been identified in the
Vilcashuaman and Caraybamba areas. The subsequent
LIP styles (LIP2) are more ill-defined, being of lesser
quality in form, with design and pastes that are signifi-
cantly plainer in execution and more widely distributed
across the three departments. Among these ceramic tra-
ditions, the Arqalla material constitutes the most recog-
nizable and widest distributed group.
The Qachisqo tradition, which has been attributed
to LIP1, has been demonstrated to include elements
of the Chanca and Chicha style (see above and
González Carré et al. 1987). Within this pottery style
a distinct class of small-sized face neck jar type
vessels, hand modeled, with appliqué bulging facial fea-
tures and convex necks, is present, which is distinct
enough to be classed as a separate recognizable tra-
dition. It shares its apparent largely “ritual” archaeolo-
gical context (González Carré et al. 1987), deriving
from burials and offerings, with the later Arqalla
material.
As previously stated, the Arqalla assemblages are
frequently linked with burial and offering contexts.
The group catalogued by González Carré et al.
(1987) includes several distinct stylistic subgroups.
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 44. Tanta Orqo material (LIP1) from Ranrapata. © F.
Meddens.
There is a roughly modeled cluster comprising largely
smaller sized jars (see above) (Arqalla A). Then there
is the material with incised and impressed decorative
elements below the rim (González Carré et al.
1987: 76–77) with an incurving or constricted
neck/upper body form (Arqalla B). The pastes here
tend to be harder and slightly better executed than
those manifest in the Arqalla A group. There is a
further category with carelessly executed linear
designs (González Carré et al. 1987: 80), the latter
bearing similarities in execution to some of the
LIP2 Soras-style ceramics from the Chicha Soras
valley. There are other possible subgroups present
but, as the material reviewed largely does not derive
from controlled excavation contexts, it is currently
impossible to extract these with much confidence.
The Aya Orqo pottery includes various distinct sty-
listic groups. These include a painted component
Figure 45. Aya Orqo painted beaker. © F. Meddens.
48
which comprises casually executed rounded or amor-
phous clusters of filler design elements, often con-
tained within linear band features (González Carré
et al. 1987: 106, 108, 109, 111). There are vessel
forms and pastes, which once more display a slightly
higher quality and greater complexity of design and
form than is seen in the rest of the tradition, such
as the case of an exterior painted beaker (Figure 45)
(González Carré et al. 1987: 100 lower left) and a
modeled camelid-shaped vessel form with painted
exterior decoration (Figure 46) (González Carré
et al. 1987: 104 lower left)), albeit interpreted as a
representation of a snail in a variant published by
Valdez (2002: 402, Figure 14). These appear ill at
ease within the context of the remainder of the Aya
Orqo style. There is an element which can be
clearly defined as a local imitation of LH Inca cer-
amics, as characterized, for example, by Aya Orqo
rough aryballos forms illustrated in González Carré
et al. (1987: 104 upper left). Within the currently
available data sets for the LIP2 assemblages it
remains impossible to identify much detail of the
spatial distribution or cultural affiliations of most of
the additional (sub-?)styles apparent in the Arqalla
and Aya Orqo assemblages, except for the elements
which draw on Soras- and Inca-derived parallels.
Within the readings of the Chanca wars, as high-
lighted in the early colonial chronicle sources, there
remains an unresolved question as to whether these
events reflect warfare that took place in the aftermath
of the collapse of Wari or its loss of central control, or
Figure 46. Aya Orqo modeled camelid-shaped jar with painted
decoration. © F. Meddens.
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
—as explicitly stated in these accounts—as part of the
initial expansion of the Inca state. If the Inca poten-
tate wished to be recognized by his neighbors as a
powerful ruler, he would have needed to demonstrate
his forceful generosity with them. This meant the
Inca ruler should be able to grant to subordinate
kurakas wives, textiles, sumptuous objects, coca, etc.
The Inca head of state would have needed to
provide a multitude of high-quality gifts, which
within the political and economic structure of reci-
procity would in return provide him with a willing
workforce (Rostworowski de Diez Canseco 2014
[1997]: 153–154). The transitive nature of gifting
animated objects in these exchanges would allow
the Incas to be generous and to initiate reciprocal
arrangements on a large scale.
These power relations and how these were managed
through a system of gifting of animated goods by
powerful kurakas to effect dominance over rival
lords needs to be understood. The LIP2 material
culture available to the polities of Apurimac,
Ayacucho, and Huancavelica was qualitatively
nowhere near as sophisticated as what the contempor-
ary Killke, Lucre, and subsequent Inca groups in the
Cuzco region were capable of producing. This alone
would have placed the former in a significantly subor-
dinate position to the latter.
As noted in earlier papers, the limited material
sophistication and lack of social or political hierarchy
in the LIP2 sites across Ayacucho, Apurimac, and
Huancavelica contrasts with the advanced material
culture and complex site hierarchies which can be
recognized for the contemporary LIP2 and early LH
traditions across the department of Cuzco (Covey
2006; Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari 2005).
This renders it unlikely that the “Chanca” as a
nation, with or without allies, would have formed a suf-
ficiently socially coherent and integrated entity to have
constituted a threat to the Incas during the later part of
the LIP. This leaves open the question of whether such
rivalries would have been practically more likely at the
end of the MH, as suggested by Zuidema and others
(Lumbreras 1958, 1974; Rostworowski de Diez
Canseco 2004; Zuidema 1989 [1967]), or during
LIP1. Indeed, if such events occurred during LIP1
49
then there would have existed sound reasons for the
later Incas to claim these episodes as having been
resolved by them rather than by their predecessors.
Unsurprisingly, the LIP pottery styles as reviewed
here constitute a far more subtle picture, with many
more definable subgroups and diversity than pre-
viously reported. This is clearly indicative of a much
more complicated and locally focused cultural develop-
ment across the region than previously noted, whether
archaeologically or ethnohistorically.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to staff of the Ministry of Culture, the
Universidad Nacional San Cristobal de Huamanga,
the Museo Regional de Huancavelica, and the
Colegio Jose Carlos Arguadas; as well as Maximo
Sanchez Huincho, Edgar Alindro Media Candiote,
Edgar Davila Vargas, Nils Ramiro Sulca Huarcaya,
Edison Mendoza M., Jorge R. Camara, and
Katherina Schreiber who allowed us access to their
collections and unpublished material without which
this study would not have been possible.
The authors are grateful to Brian Bauer, Alexandra
Morgan, Bill Sillar, and Katharina Schreiber for com-
menting on earlier versions of this article. We thank
Christine Hastorf for her encouragement, and
Christine Hastorf and Kristyn Hara for the wood
identifications necessary for the C14 dates reported
on. We are also very grateful to Jerry Moore and an
anonymous reviewer for their help and comments.
We are enormously indebted to Mark Roughly for
getting the illustrations in a state fit for publication.
Frank Meddens dedicates this article to his wife
Beverley whose unswerving backing, support, and
encouragement made repeated Peruvian trips possible
over many years and without whom the required
efforts would have become unstuck long ago.
Funding
This paper would not have been possible without the
support of the British Academy and Leverhulme
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Trust whose research grants allowed the authors to
carry out the necessary work.
Notes
1 Worth noting in this context is that aspects of this
story remain current within present-day historic
notions for the department of Ayacucho. For
example, the village of Taulli, in the province of
Huancasancos and the district of Carapo, which
remained largely unaffected by the civil war of the
1980s, by either the activities of the army, paramili-
taries, or Sendero Luminoso, is said to have been
protected by a large stone boulder situated on the
access route to the village. This boulder is stated to
have become animated at times of attacks on the
community, when it moved in the way of any
bullets fired at the village (Francisco Ferreira, per-
sonal communication).
2 For example, as noted, Spanish sources claim to have
seen the remains of fallen Chanca warriors still
present and preserved on the Ichupampa battlefield
when they first came across it; however, even with
this example, it would then have been difficult to
objectively establish what these human remains rep-
resented and is now patently no longer possible.
3 Lucanas is the current spelling of the earlier Rucanas,
which references the ethnic group but at present
references largely the geographic region formerly
occupied by the Rucanas.
4 Concerns that the document could be a seventeenth-
century forgery produced to assist an illegitimate son
of Diego Maldonado in a property dispute have been
articulated (Kurin 2016: 60–64); however, the
authors are happy to consider it as genuine.
5 We will continue to use Chanca and Chicha jointly
throughout this article as both terms are now found
in the published literature (Meddens and Vivanco
Pomacanchari 2005: 81–82, 91–92; Meddens and
Schreiber 2010: 146) and opting for one or the
other or choosing to use a third alternative would
serve only to confuse matters.
6 Specific locational information on sites is available to
scientific investigators by request to the senior author.
7 Middle-style olive jars as defined in Deagan (1987:
33–34).
8 Tanta Orqo, Qaschiqo, Arqalla, and Aya Orqo as
defined by González Carré et al. (1987).
9 In Lucanas, Aymaraes, and Acobamba in Ayacucho,
Apurimac, and Huancavelica, respectively.
50
References Cited
Arco Parro, Alberto
1923 Dónde vivían los Chankas? Inca I(4):970–974,
Lima.
Barnes, Monica
1986 Representations of the Cosmos: A Comparison of
the Church of San Cristobal de Pampachiri with
the Coricancha Drawing of Santacruz Pachacuti
Yamqui Salcamaygua. In Perspectives on Andean
Prehistory and Protohistory, Papers from the Third
Annual Northeast Conference on Andean
Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Daniel
H. Sandweiss and D. Peter Kvietok, pp. 145–
157. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Bauer, Brian S.
1999 The Early Ceramics of the Inca Heartland,
Fieldiana. Anthropology, New Series, No. 31
13–121.
2004 Ancient Cuzco, Heartland of the Inca. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
Bauer, Brian S., and R. Alan Covey
2004 The Development of the Inca State (AD 1000-
1400). In Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca,
edited by Brian S. Bauer, pp. 71–90. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
Bauer, Brian S., and Lucas C. Kellett
2010 Cultural Transformations in the Chanka
Homeland (Andahuaylas Peru) during the Late
Intermediate Period (AD 1000–1400). Latin
American Antiquity 21(1):87-111.
Bauer, Brian S., Lucas C. Kellett, and Miriam Aráoz Silva,
with contributions by Sabine Hyland and Carlo Socualaya
Dávila
2010 The Chanka, Archaeological Research in
Andahuaylas (Apurimac), Peru, Monograph 68,
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Benavides Calle, Mario
1976 Yacimientos arqueologicos en Ayacucho.
Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal de
Huamanga, Departamento Academico de
Ciencias Historico Sociales, Ayacucho.
1984 Carácter del estado Wari. Universidad Nacional de
San Cristóbal de Huamanga, Ayacucho.
Betanzos, Juan de
1987 [1551] Suma y narración de los Incas. Ediciones
Atlas, Madrid.
Cabello Valboa, Miguel
1951 [1586] Miscelánea antártica. Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Camara, Guerrero, and Jorge Roberto
2015 Pukullupata; un asentamiento del Período
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Intermedio Tardío (ca. 900–1450 d.c.) en la
cuenca baja del Río Negromayo, Lucanas,
Ayacucho. Historia y Región III(3):53–77, Lima.
Carrera, Pablo, Genaro Farfán, and Marino González
2014 [1945–1946] Informe expedición arqueólogica a
la cuenca del Rió Pampas. Revista Conchopata 4:
11-56.
Chilton, Elizabeth S.
1999 Ceramic Research in New England: Breaking the
Typological Mould. In The Archaeological
Northeast, edited by M. A. Levine, K. E.
Sassaman, and M. S. Nassaney, p. 100. Bergin
and Garvey, Westport.
Cieza de León, Pedro de
1967 [1553] El señorío de los Incas. Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
1984 [1553] Crónica del Perú, primera parte. Fondo
Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú, Lima.
Covey, R. Alan
2003 The Vilcanota Valley (Peru Inca State formation
and the Evolution of Imperial Strategies), unpub-
lished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan,
Department of Anthropology.
2006 How the Incas Built Their Heartland: State
Formation and the Innovation of Imperial
Strategies in the Sacred Valley, Peru. The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Van Dalen Luna, Pieter D.
2011 Arqueología prehispánica tardía de Caraybamba,
Aymaraes, Apurímac asentamientos y andenerías.
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Deagan, Kathleen
1987 Artefacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the
Caribbean 1500–1800 Volume 1: Ceramics,
Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington.
Duvoils, Pierre
1973 Huari y Llacuaz: Agricultores y pastores. Un dua-
lismo prehispánoco de oposición y complemen-
taridad. Revista del Museo Nacional 39:153–191.
Farrington, Ian
2013 Cusco: Urbanism and Archaeology in the Inka
World, Ancient Cities of the New World.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Finucane, Brian C., J. Ernesto Valdez Valdez, Ismael Pérez
Calderon, Cirilo Vivanco Pomacanchari, Lidio M. Valdez,
and Tamsin O’Connell
2007 The End of Empire: New Radiocarbon Dates
from the Ayacucho Valley, Peru, and their
Implications for the Collapse of the Wari State.
Radiocarbon 49:579–592.
51
Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca
1723 [1609] Commentarios reales que traten del origen
de los Incas (Primera parte). Oficina real y
Nicolas Rodriguez Franco, Madrid.
Gomez Choque, Emanuel
2008 Investigaciones bioarqueologicas en sitios de
Inhumación, Chanca en Andahuaylas. Trabajo
de tesis para obtener el titulo de licenciado,
Universidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de
Huamanga, Unpublished.
González Carré, Enrique
1992 Los señorios chankas. Universidad Nacional de San
Cristobal de Huamanga, Instituto Andino de
Estudios Arqueológicos, Lima.
González Carré, Enrique, Denise Pozzi-Escot, Muriel
Pozzi-Escot, and P. Cirilo Vivanco
1987 Los Chankas: cultura material. Laboratorio de
arqueológia, Escuela de Arqueologia e Historia,
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad
Nacional de San Cristobal de Huamanga,
Ayacucho.
González Carré, Enrique, and Fermin Rivera Pineda
1983 Antiguos dioses y nuevos conflictos andinos.
Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal de
Huamanga, Ayacucho.
Guáman Poma de Ayala, Felipe
1980 [1583–1615] El primer nueva corónica y buen
gobierno, edited by J. V. Murra, R. Adorno, and
J. Urioste. Siglo Veintiuno editores, Mexico.
Gutiérez Correa, Alexander
2014 Excavaciones arqueológicas en el asentamiento de
Panchama “A” Chalhuahuacho, Apurimac,
trabajo de tesis para obtener el titulo de licen-
ciado, Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal
de Huamanga, Unpublished.
Hara, Kristyn, and Christine A. Hastorf
2016 Middle and Late Horizon wood from Chiqna jota
(LU5), Chicha Valley, Peru, UC Berkeley
Archaeobotany Report #83, unpublished.
Heffernan, Kenneth
1996 Limatambo: Archaeology, History and the
Regional Societies of Inca Cusco, British
Archaeological Reports International Series.
Huamani Diaz, Jhon R.
2014 Estudio del material cultural del Cerro
Churrucana, distrito de Quinoa, Ayacucho,
trabajo de tesis para obtener el título de licen-
ciado, Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal
de Huamanga, unpublished.
Hyland, Sabine
2010 The Chankas: Power and Religion During
Colonial Spanish Rule, Reader in Social
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Anthropology Department of Social
Anthropology, unpublished manuscript.
2016 The Chankas and the Priest, A Tale of Murder and
Exile in Highland Peru. Pennsylvania State
University Press, Pennsylvania.
Ixer, Rob, Sarah Lunt, Bill Sillar, and Patrick Thompson
2014 Microscopic Rocks and Expansive Empires:
Investigating Inca Ceramics from Cuzco, Peru.
Archaeology International 17:122–136.
Jimenez de la Espada, Marcos
1965 [1881] Relaciones geograficas de Indias, Vol. 1.
Atlas, Madrid.
Julien, Catherine
2002 Diego Maldonado y los Chancas. Revista Andina
34:183-197.
Kellett, Lucas C.
2010 Chanka Settlement Ecology: Hilltop Sites, Land
Use and Warfare in Late Prehispanic
Andahuaylas, Peru, unpublished PhD disser-
tation, The University of New Mexico.
Kellett, Lucas C., Danielle Kurin, Sarah Jolly, and Guni
Monteagudo
2015 Life at Achanchi: A High Altitude Chanka Burial
Site from the Andahuaylas Region of Southern
Peru, Paper Presented at SAA 80th Annual
Meeting San Francisco, unpublished.
Kurin, Danielle S.
2013 Trepanation in South-Central Peru During the
Early Late Intermediate Period (ca. AD 1000–
1250). American Journal of Physical Anthropology
152(4):484–494.
2016 The Bioarchaeology of Societal Collapse and
Regeneration in Ancient Peru. Bio Archaeology
and Social Theory Series, Springer.
Lumbreras, Luis G.
1958 La cultura Wari, Ayacucho. In Revista etnología y
arqueología, publicación del Instituto de Etnología y
Arqueología. Universidad Nacional de San
marcos, Lima, Perú.
1959 Sobre los Chankas. In Actas y trabajos del II con-
greso Nacional de Historia del Perú, Vol. 1, pp.
211–242. Centro de Estudios Histórico
Militares del Perú, Lima.
1974 La arqueologia como ciencia social. Ediciones
Histar, Lima.
1975 Las fundaciones de huamanga, hacia una prehis-
toria de Ayacucho. Club de Huamanga,
Ayacucho.
MacNeish, Richard S., Angel Garcia Cook, Luis G.
Lumbreras, Robert K. Vierra, and Antoinette Nelken-
Terner
1981 Prehistory of the ayacucho basin, Peru, Excavations
52
and Chronology, Volume II. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Matos Mendieta, Ramiro
1960 Informes sobre trabajos arqueológicos en
Castrovirreyna, Huancavelica. In Antiguo Peru,
Espacio y Tiempo, edited by R. Matos Mendieta,
pp. 313–324. Librería-Editorial Juan Mejia
Baca, Lima.
Meddens, Frank M.
1984 Report on the Archaeology of the Chicha/Soras
Valley. In Current Archaeological Projects, in
the Central Andes, British Archaeological Reports
210, edited by A. Kendall, pp. 133–151.
B.A.R., Oxford.
1985 The Chicha/Soras Valley during the Middle
Horizon; Provincial Aspects of Huari.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of
Archaeology, UCL.
1991 A Provincial Perspective of Huari Organization
Viewed from the Chicha/Soras Valley. In Huari
Administrative Structure; Prehistoric Monumental
Architecture and State Government, edited by G.
McEwan and W. H. Isbell, pp. 215-231.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.
1994 Mountains Miniatures Ancestors and Fertility;
The Meaning of a Late Horizon Offering in a
Middle Horizon Structure in Peru. In Institute
of Archaeology Bulletin, Number 31, pp. 127-
150. Institute of Archaeology, Gordon Square,
London.
2006 Rocks and Stones in the Landscape, Managing
the Inca Agricultural Cycle. The Antiquaries
Journal 86:36-65.
2011 The Late Intermediate Period Egalitarian Polities
of Ayacucho and Apurímac, Revista Haucaypata.
Investigaciones arqueológicas del Tahuantinsuyo,
Lima 3:25-44.
2016 Boundaries in Ayacucho: fossilised territorial
Limits or Shifting Cultural Perspectives?
Nicolas Goepfert, Segundo Vázquez, Camille
Clément and Aurélien Christol (ed), Las
Sociedades Andinas frente a los cambios
pasados y actuales, Diámicas territoriales,
crisis, fronteras y movilidades. Actes et
Mémoires IFEA 43:117-149.
Meddens, Frank M., and Nicholas P. Branch
2010 The Wari State, its Use of Ancestors, Rural
Hinterland, and Agricultural Infrastructure. In
Beyond Wari Walls Regional Perspectives on
Middle Horizon Peru, edited by Justin Jennings,
pp. 155-170. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
 Meddens and Vivanco Pomacanchari: The LIP ceramic traditions of Ayacucho, Apurimac, and Huancavelica
Meddens, Frank M., and Katherina J. Schreiber
2010 Inka Strategies of Control: A Comparison of the
Chicha and Sondondo Valleys, Peru. Ñawpa
Pacha, Institute of Andean Studies 30(2):127-
165. Albuquerque.
Meddens, Frank M., and Cirilo Vivanco Pomacanchari
2005 The Chanca confederation; political myth and
archaeological reality/La confederación Chanka;
mito político y realidad arqueológica, Avances
recientes en arqueologia y etnohistoria,
ed R. Bárcena & R Stehberg, Xama,
Publicación de la Unidad de Antropología,
Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y
Ambientales, Mendoza Argentina, 15–18, 73–
99.
Menzel, Dorothy
1968 La cultura Wari: las grandes civilizaciones del
antiguo Perú, Volume 6. Compañia de Seguros
y Reseguros Peruano Suizo, S.A., Lima, Peru.
de Monzón, Luis
1965 [1586] Descripción de la tierra del repartimiento
de Atunsora, encomendado en Hernando
Palomino, jurisdición de la ciudad de
Guamanga, año de 1586. In Relaciones
geográficas de Indias–Peru, edited by don Marcos
Jiménez de la Espada. Biblioteca de Autores
Españoles 183, pp. 220–225. Madrid.
Ochatoma Paravicino, Jose, and Martha Cabrera Romero
2001 Poblados rurales huari una visión desde Aqo Wayqo.
CANO, Lima.
Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Juan de
1993 [1613] Relación de Antigüedades deste Reyno del
Pirú. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos/
Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos
“Bartolomé de las Casas’, Lima.
Paz Soldan, Mariano F.
1865 Atlas geografico del Peru. Libreria de Fermin Didot
Hermanos, Paris.
Pérez Calderón, Ismael
2013 Asentamientos periféricos del centro urbano de
Conchopata, Ayacucho. In Arqueologia y
Sociedad 25, pp. 143-168. Museo de
Arqueología y Antropología Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Polo de Ondegardo
1916–17 [1571] Relacion de los fundamentos acerca
del notable daño que resulta de no guardar a los
Indios sus fueros. In Informaciones acerca de la
Religión y Gobierno de los Incas, Biobliographical
References and Concordances of the texts by
Horacio H. Urteaga; Biography by Carlos
A. Romero, vol 1 (1916) 2 vols. Collección de
53
libros y documentos referentes a la historia del
Peru, nos III-IV. Sanmartí, Lima.
Quilter, Jeffrey
2013 The Civilization of the Incas. In The Illustrated
History of the Ancient World. Rosen Publishing,
New York.
2014 The Ancient Central Andes. In Routledge World
Archaeology. Routledge, Abingdon & New York.
Ravines, Rogger
2011 Estilos de cerámica del antiguo Perú. Boletín De
Lima 163-166:433-564.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, Maria
2004 La influencia wari en el Incario y las
Peregrinaciones. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP
Nr 8:23-30.
2014 [1997] Pachacutec y la leyenda de los Chancas. In
Maria Rostworowski obras completas IX, Los Incas,
Serie Historia Andina 42, pp. 143–170. IEP,
Ministerio de Cultura, Lima.
Rowe, John H.
1946 Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish
Conquest. In Handbook of South American
Indians, Volume 2 The Andean Civilizations,
edited by J. H. Steward, pp. 183–330.
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 143, Washington.
Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro
1988 [1572] Historia de los Incas. Biblioteca de Viajeros
Hispánicos, Madrid.
Schreiber, Katharina J.
1993 The Inca Occupation of the Province of
Andamarcas Lucanas, Peru. In Provincial Inca,
edited by Michael A. Malpass, pp. 77-116.
University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Stanish, Charles, Percy Calisaya Chuquimia, Cecilia
Chavez Justo, Edmundo de la Vega, Kirk Lawrence Frye,
Luperio Onofre Mamani, Matthew Seddon, and Lee
Steadman
1997 Archaeological Survey in the Juli—Desaguadero
Region of Lake Titicaca Basin, Southern Peru.
Fieldiana. Anthropology, New Series, No. 29.
Tosi, Joseph A.
1960 Zonas de vida natural en el Peru, memoria explica-
tiva sobre el mapa ecológico del Perú. Instituto
Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la OEA
Zona Andina, Lima.
Valdez, Lidio M.
2002 Y la tradición continúa: la alfarería de la época
Inka en el valle de Ayacucho, Perú. Boletín de
Arqueologia, PUCP Nr 6, 395–410.
Valdez, Lidio M., and Cirilo Vivanco
1994 Arqueologia de la cuenca del Qaracha, Ayacucho,
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Peru. Latin American Antiquity 5(2):144–157.
June.
Vivanco Pomacanchari, Cirilo
1996 Arqueológia de Puquio (Informe Final),
Laboratorio de Arqueológia, Esquela de
Arqueológia e Historia, Facultad de Ciencias
Sociales,Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal
de Huamanga, Ayacucho unpublished.
2001 Raqaraqaypata y Ñawpallacta dos poblados de
la época Chanka en el área Sur de Ayacucho,
54
In: XII Congreso Peruano del Hombre y la
Cultura Andina. “Luis Lumbreras”. Tomo II
Lima - Perú.
2002 Tiempos de purun runas en la cuenca de Caracha,
Ayacucho. In: Investigaciones en Ciencias Sociales
No 2.
Zuidema, R. Tom
1989 [1967] El origen del imperio Inca. In: Reyes y
Guerreros, Ensayos de Cultura Andina, Grandes
Estudios Andinos FOMCIENCIAS.