Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Communities of weavers: A methodology for analyzing textile and cloth T

production
Jacob L. Bongersa, , Colleen O'Sheab, Alan Farahanic
⁎

a
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 308 Charles E. Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
b
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA
c
Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA

ABSTRACT

Variation in textile production processes from archaeological contexts can distinguish communities of weavers and signal distinct group identities. In this paper, we
present an analysis of 141 textiles recovered from a single grave located in the mid-Chincha Valley, Peru that dates from the Late Horizon (1400–1532 CE) to the
Colonial Period (1532–1825 CE). This sample represents one of the largest and best-preserved textile assemblages from a clearly defined and radiocarbon-dated
archaeological context in the Chincha Valley. For this study, we document techniques used in two distinct phases of textile production: yarn production (spinning and
plying) and weaving. We 1) develop a manual hierarchical classification method for identifying groups of textiles featuring consistent associations among techniques
used for each production phase and 2) assess how these groups vary in terms of thread count, size, garment type, and design. Our results reveal six groupings of textile
production techniques that account for 71% of the assemblage by count. We compare these results to that of an independent cluster analysis that examines the joint
co-occurrence of yarn production and weaving techniques and find that they are largely in accordance with each other. We suggest that these multiple textile groups
corresponded to distinct communities or households of weavers associated with this grave. Our study provides a methodology for analyzing the variation and
consistency of textile production to learn about communities of weavers within and outside the Andes.

1. Introduction
Craft production broadly entails the transformation of raw materials
into finished products. Several anthropological studies on technology
describe production as a social process mediated by communities and
individuals (Dobres, 2000; Lemonnier, 1986, 1992, 2013). Through this
process and the identities of the individuals who made them, products
acquire value, meaning, and power (Clark and Parry, 1990; Costin,
1998a, b, 2001, p. 274; Lechtman, 1993). Scholars draw attention to the
body as a medium through which techniques are learned, transmitted,
and employed, and assert that these activities occur in social environ-
ments that integrate people, relationships, and material culture (Budden
and Sofaer, 2009; Dobres, 2000, pp. 131, 137; Mauss, 2006). Embodied
techniques and motor skills can leave physical traces on finished pro-
ducts, and they can reveal social norms because they are frequently
learned through imitation and repetition in social contexts (Minar, 2001;
Tiballi, 2010, p. 146). Methodologies derived from the concept of chaîne
opératoire, translated as “chain of operations,” consider traces left by
embodied techniques to model sequences of actions and decisions that
characterize the life history of an artifact (Lemonnier, 1986, 1992, 2013;
Leroi-Gourhan, 1943; Mauss, 2006). Different sequences of production
can foster variations in the material record, variations that may connect
to style (Carr, 1995; Conkey and Hastorf, 1990; Sackett, 1977, 1982,
1990; Wiessner, 1983, 1984; Wobst, 1977), group identity (Brumfiel,
1998; Costin, 1998a, 1998b), individual experimentation and personal
preference, and cultural and community-based norms and preferences
(Dobres, 2000; Peters, 2014; Tiballi, 2010).
Two considerations emerge from these theoretical and methodolo-
gical frameworks that are of relevance to this paper. First, if techniques
and other forms of non-discursive knowledge (Budden and Sofaer, 2009,
p. 203) related to the production of an artifact were learned and trans-
mitted in social contexts and potentially across generations, then it is
likely that these activities generated technical preferences among those
engaged in their manufacture. These preferences may materialize as
consistency in technical attributes associated with different steps in the
production process (Peters, 2014, p. 113). Second, if materials were used
that require multiple phases of manufacturing—necessitating distinct
techniques—it is possible that different communities participated in their
production. Therefore, we propose that materials with apparent, con-
sistent techniques across multiple phases of production correspond to
preferences that marked distinct communities of weavers. We apply this
model to an assemblage of well-preserved Andean textiles to gain in-
sights into the communities involved in their production.
Textiles are ideal materials for this study. As structurally complex
materials, they retain physical traces of a multi-stage production process
described by Peters (2014, p. 111) as “agglutinative.” Textile production

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bongers@g.ucla.edu (J.L. Bongers).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.09.025
Received 4 May 2018; Received in revised form 6 September 2018; Accepted 22 September 2018
2352-409X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.L. Bongers et al.
broadly consists of several phases: 1) harvesting and processing cotton or
camelid hair fibers, 2) spinning these fibers and plying them into yarns,
3) dyeing or not dyeing these yarns, and then 4) manipulating yarns
through weaving or non-weaving techniques (e.g., looping, braiding,
etc.) to produce textiles, which can be further modified through painting,
embroidery, or attachment to other textiles. Close examination of various
features in a single finished textile such as spin direction, ply, dye, and
weave structure, can determine the techniques used by weavers
throughout the production process. Given the multiple choices available
to weavers during each phase, such as spinning a fiber in either the S
direction or the Z direction, textiles from a given archaeological context
that display shared techniques demonstrate consistency and preference
in the production process. We define such groups of textiles as “style
groups,” following Peters (2014), which may reflect communities of
weavers. We also follow Sackett's (1982, p. 63) broad definition of style
as a “highly specific and characteristic way of doing something which by
its very nature is peculiar to a time and space.” Ethnographic and ar-
chaeological research suggest that weavers within the Andes learned and
transmitted technical knowledge in group environments which in turn,
created preferences in textile production practices that distinguished
communities and cultures and expressed group identity (Bird, 1979;
Brezine, 2013, p. 240; Franquemont, 1986; Hendon, 2006; Medlin, 1986;
Rowe, 1998, p. 22; Splitstoser, 2009; Wallace, 1979).
Here, we analyze 141 textiles found in a single grave located in the
mid-Chincha Valley, Peru (Fig. 1) that dates from the Late Horizon
(1400–1532 CE) to the Colonial Period (1532–1825 CE).1 We document
the techniques used in two major phases of textile production: 1) yarn
processing (spinning and plying) and 2) weaving. Dye was neither in-
cluded as a production step nor was it incorporated into our analyses
because we considered the number of dyed textiles too small (15). Fiber
was also not included as a production step because only a small sample
of textiles has supplementary warps or wefts of camelid fiber (11). We
develop a manual hierarchical classification method informed by the-
oretical and methodological approaches to technology and production
and archaeological and ethnographic literature on textiles. This method
is used to identify style groups based on consistent associations of
techniques employed in these two phases of production. Six style
groups that account for 71% of the entire textile assemblage are iden-
tified. We then conduct exploratory analyses of our textile assemblage
using several methods. We use the Inverse Simpson index and a Dun-
nett's modified Tukey-Kramer pairwise multiple comparison test to
compare style groups in terms of textile features such as thread count,
dimensions, garment type, and design. Lastly, a Dice-Sørenson distance
measure is used as the basis for an independent hierarchical classifi-
cation method for identifying style groups. We compare the results of
this cluster analysis with that of our previously described manual
classification method and find that they mostly coincide with each
other. We suggest that these style groups may indicate the presence of
multiple communities that produced textiles found in this grave.
2. Background
2.1. Textile production in the Andes: ethnographic, archaeological, and
documentary perspectives
The ethnographic literature on Andean textiles demonstrates
1
These temporal categories derive from Rowe's (1945) traditional chron-
ology. While Rowe and Menzel and Rowe (1966) assert that Inca annexation of
the Chincha Valley took place in 1476 CE, Julien (2008) argues that it likely
started as early as 1408 CE, based on her examination of the “Relación,”
(Crespo, 1975) a Spanish document concerning the Chincha Kingdom. Ad-
ditionally, Marsh et al. (2017) provide radiocarbon data that indicate that Inca
expansion into the southern Andes may have occurred in the early 15th cen-
tury. For the purposes of this paper, we suggest that the Late Horizon in the
Chincha Valley is (1400–1532 CE).
224
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
community-based preferences in spinning, such as papers in Rowe
(1998) which examine spinning and weaving practices found among
highland communities in Ecuador. Meisch (1998, pp. 22–23) notes that
conventions in spinning practices are community-based, observing that
among the Saraguro community, S-spun yarn is considered “normal”
and Z-spun yarn is considered the “reverse.” Among the camelid
herding communities situated in Isluga (northern Chile), Dransart
(2002) documents types of yarn that are spun and plied in normative
ways for the production of specific textiles. For example, yarns known
as ch'anka, composed of two Z-spun fibers plied in the S direction, are
used to produce carrying cloths, blankets, and bags, while ch'añu yarns
encompass differently colored and plied fibers used in the production of
storage sacks (Dransart, 2002, pp. 114–115). Franquemont's (1986)
work on textile production in the Cusco region further supports the
claim that preferences in spinning can be tied to specific communities,
demonstrating that Z-spun yarn is the predominant yarn type for
communities in the area.
The ethnographic record in the Andes also suggests that preferences
in spinning and weaving are learned and ingrained during early
childhood and oftentimes within communal environments, and that
they can be related to group identity. To be clear, the textile production
process requires non-discursive knowledge and motor skills learned
through focused attention, conscious movement, imitation, repetition,
and experimentation (Minar, 2001; Tiballi, 2010, p. 146). Once mas-
tered, these skills are very difficult to change, and for this reason, they
can materialize as preferences in textile production techniques. Since
spinning in Andean weaving communities is an important daily activity
frequently conducted alongside other tasks, children oftentimes learn
this activity as early as age four and develop proficiency in it by age
nine (Bolin, 2006; Rowe, 1998, p. 24). In the Chillihuani community
based in the south-central Andean highlands, Bolin (2006, p. 99) finds
that children learn how to spin and weave by directly imitating, as
opposed to being instructed by, other family members who have mas-
tered these activities. Dransart (2002, p. 123) describes a public,
communal environment in which members of younger and older gen-
erations weave textiles together, allowing for critique, competition, and
dialogue to foster and help determine acceptable practices. For in-
stance, Dransart (2002, p. 123) writes that older women during the
1980's criticized younger women for the amount of dyed color they
used. In addition, for many young women in the Calcha community in
Bolivia, learning to weave—commonly from their mothers within
households—allows them to produce textiles according to acceptable
standards and express their affiliation to the Calcha (Medlin, 1986, p.
276). In this case, producing textiles in conventional, socially mediated
ways helps structure group identity.
Preferences and diversity in textile production techniques have also
been documented in the archaeological record of the Andes. Bird
(1979) discusses the conservative nature of spinning in Peru, suggesting
a preference for Z-spun yarns on the southern coast and S-spun yarns on
the northern coast. Scholars have demonstrated additional evidence for
this argument, even among modern populations, and debated the rea-
sons behind these patterns (Conklin, 1975, 1979; Franquemont et al.,
1992; Goodell, 1968; Rowe and Cohen, 2002, p. 84; Splitstoser, 2009;
Wallace, 1979). Wallace (1979) finds broad support for these allegedly
regionally-based spinning traditions, yet notes examples of inter-
regional variation. For instance, many central coast plain-weave textiles
feature Z-spun cotton yarns, but earlier twined textiles exhibit yarns
spun in the S and Z directions (Wallace, 1979, p. 32). Splitstoser's
(2009) analysis of Paracas textiles from the site of Cerillos on the Per-
uvian southern coast illustrates a strong preference for cotton yarns
spun in the Z direction and plied in the S direction, “rules” governing
the inclusion of specific colors and fiber types, and a wide variation in
color combination and weave structure. He argues that weavers af-
filiated with Cerillos followed guidelines regarding textile production
and design, yet also experimented. Peters (2014) performed another
analysis of Paracas textiles to identify the nature of the communities
J.L. Bongers et al.
Fig. 1. Map of the study area (source: Ioana A. Dumitru and Jacob L. Bongers). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
who participated in textile production. Based on the diversity and
consistency of styles and iconography, Peters (2014, pp. 136–137) ar-
gues for the presence of numerous communities of textile production
that competed in “quality, esoteric knowledge, and innovation.” Her
study illustrates a broad principle for analyses of artifacts that this
paper draws from: “co-variation among several practices in producing a
series of artifacts may be considered evidence of a shared community of
textile production, a social entity that shared norms and habits” (Peters,
2014, p. 136).
Regarding Late Horizon textiles, Tiballi (2010) adopts a chaîne
opératoire methodology to examine variation in production techniques
within a textile assemblage from the Cemetery of the Sacrificed Women
at Pachacamac. This assemblage was likely associated with the acllas, a
specialized class of female weavers controlled by the Inca state. She
finds a predominant preference for Z-spun yarn and documents that all
yarns found on spindles in the cemetery are also spun in the Z direction
(Tiballi, 2010, p. 363). Based on these results, Tiballi (2010, p. 363)
argues that spinning yarns in the Z direction was the local, conventional
spinning practice for the acllas. Predominant textile production prac-
tices documented in these archaeological cases were likely related to
cultural or community-based preferences, following ethnographic
sources.
Written sources demonstrate that different Andean textile styles
communicated status and cultural affiliations to provinces, nations, and
social groups in areas integrated into the Inca Empire (de Betanzos,
1996[1551]; Cobo, 1979[1653]; Julien, 1983). We consider Andean
textiles and their production techniques and styles as important mate-
rial markers that distinguished cultural groups and communities
(Boytner, 2004; Murra, 1962; Phipps, 2013; Reycraft, 2005; Rowe and
O'Neill, 1984). During the fifteenth century, the Inca incorporated a
diverse array of polities with varying levels of political complexity. For
example, the Inca required conquered populations to maintain their
distinct local variations in textiles (Cobo, 1979[1653]; Julien, 1983) as
a way of discouraging alliance-building and deterring rebellions
225
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
(Costin, 1998b, p. 123). While commoners were forbidden to wear elite
textiles under Inca rule, local elites were given Inca-style textile gifts as
part of their incorporation into the administrative hierarchy (de
Betanzos, 1996[1551]).
During this time, even though textile production was geared toward
domestic and political economies and involved several categories of
participants, it was strongly connected to women (Costin, 1995; Gero,
1992; Moseley, 1992). Younger children herded camelids and collected
flowers and herbs for dyes, and adult men and women processed cotton
fiber, spun threads, and wove (Costin, 1998b, p. 129). Both men and
women participated in the production of rough, plain cloth (awasqa)
and finely made cloth (qompi). Eight of the ten census categories for
women ranging from ages five to eighty fulfilled tasks relating to textile
production under the Inca administration (Guamán Poma de Ayala,
1980[1615], pp. 190–209). Commoner women produced awasqa for
their households and communities as well as tribute for state institu-
tions (Costin, 1998b, p. 129). Elite women made qompi for religious,
political, and military institutions and oftentimes directly for Inca
ruling elites (Costin, 1998b, p. 129).
Textiles also played key roles in mortuary practices, which en-
compass grave construction, interactions with the deceased, and the
deposition of grave inclusions. Through these practices, groups ex-
pressed and negotiated cultural affiliations as well as social and poli-
tical relationships among the living and the deceased (Brown, 2008;
Fitzsimmons and Shimada, 2011; Quinn, 2015; Shimada and
Fitzsimmons, 2015; Velasco, 2016; Verdery, 1999). In Andean mor-
tuary contexts, textiles are abundantly present because they were
commonly used as wrappings for, and offerings to, the deceased. As
attire for both the living and the deceased, Andean textiles were—and
are— important visual expressions of cultural distinctions (Boytner,
2004; Murra, 1962; Phipps, 2013; Reycraft, 2005; Rowe and O'Neill,
1984).
J.L. Bongers et al.
2.2. Historical background of the Chincha Valley
The Chincha Kingdom was one of the most complex, centralized
states on the Peruvian southern coast, controlling the Chincha Valley
during the Late Intermediate Period, or LIP (1000–1400 CE) (Canziani,
2009; Menzel and Rowe, 1966; Sandweiss, 1992; Sandweiss and Reid,
2015). The Chincha network was thought to be organized into resource-
holding groups led by chiefs, based on a Spanish document concerned
with the Chincha known as the “Relación” (Crespo, 1975). The Chincha
derived their wealth from silver, gold, and possibly guano (Curátola,
1997). Chincha merchants reportedly engaged in overseas and overland
trade, obtaining camelids from Cuzco, metals from the Titicaca basin,
and spondylus (Spondylus princeps) shell from Ecuador (Sandweiss and
Reid, 2015). Sandweiss and Reid (2015), however, find limited evi-
dence of spondylus dating to before the Late Horizon, suggesting that
Chincha gained access to the spondylus trade and expanded their
mercantile enterprises after, and possibly because of, the Inca conquest.
The Inca “peacefully” conquered and colonized the Chincha
Kingdom during the Late Horizon, reorganizing local economic, social,
and political structures. They placed agricultural land under state
control, organized the Chincha population into administrative units,
relocated Chincha silversmiths away from the valley, and subjected the
Chincha to mit'a (public service) demands (Sandweiss and Reid, 2015,
p. 9). Sandweiss's (1992) excavations of the Late Horizon fishing set-
tlement of Lo Demás in the lower Chincha Valley found that the Inca
restructured the local coastal economy to intensify specialized fishing
production. Sandweiss and Reid (2015) argue that the Chincha nego-
tiated with the Inca to become a merchant-based client state with pri-
vileged access to the spondylus trade franchise in exchange for volun-
tary subjugation. A “dual rule” political system provided local elites
with considerable autonomy and leadership roles alongside Inca ad-
ministrators and maintained preexisting hierarchies (Sandweiss and
Reid, 2015).
3. Mortuary context and research goals
3.1. Mortuary context
In 2014, we collected surface material from a grave known as UC-
008 Tomb 1 (Fig. 2), located within a cemetery known as UC-008
(Fig. 3). The grave (3.09 × 2.35 m) appears to be subterranean, partly
constructed of local fieldstones and comprising a northern-facing
opening and depositions of multiple individuals including adults, sub-
adults, males, and females. During surface collection, we found a total
of 470 whole and fragmented textiles which were subsampled for our
Fig. 2. UC-008 Tomb 1 prior to surface collection.
226
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
study. Some textiles contained juvenile remains and exhibited stains,
suggesting that they were used to wrap the deceased. Four radiocarbon
dates (Table 1) from two reeds and two vertebrae associated with those
reeds indicate a time span of use from the Late Horizon to the Colonial
Period.
This grave bears resemblance to a chullpa, an above-ground or
subterranean grave type found throughout the central Andes.
Archaeological research focusing on chullpas suggest that they flour-
ished during the LIP and continued to be built and used during the Late
Horizon as Inca hegemony spread across the Andes (Nielsen, 2016;
Stanish, 2012; Tantaleán, 2006). During these periods, kin-based, re-
source-holding groups traced their affiliation by reference to focal,
mummified ancestors, typically housed in chullpas located in highly
visible, fixed locations (Bongers et al., 2012; Dillehay, 1995; Isbell,
1997; Mantha, 2009). Members of these communities negotiated their
affiliations and political relationships by venerating deceased ancestors
from chullpas (Dillehay, 1995; Isbell, 1997; Nielsen, 2008).
3.2. Research goals
We analyzed the textiles while keeping in mind that this assemblage
derived from a single grave and adopted the view that style groups
encompass textiles with consistent associations among techniques
across the production process (Peters, 2014, p. 113). First, we sought to
identify how varied and consistent a given assemblage of textiles is in
terms of their production techniques and then bracketed these textiles
into style groups. We did not assign regional affiliations to textiles a
priori based on preferences in individual techniques because Andean
textiles exhibit considerable diversity in production and design and
were “rarely uniform” (Boytner, 2004, p. 136). Preferences in in-
dividual textile production techniques like spinning neither necessarily
indicate that the entire textile production process was conducted or
supervised by a single community of weavers (Tiballi, 2010, p. 437),
nor do they necessarily reveal the regional affiliation of the weavers.
That being said, we argue that consistency in multiple techniques as-
sociated with distinct stages in the textile production process provides
stronger evidence for communities of weavers (Peters, 2014, p. 113),
and we sought to develop a methodology that can identify this kind of
consistency.
Second, we conducted descriptive statistical analyses of the textile
assemblage that provides an overview of observable patterns in di-
mensions, warp and weft counts, garment type, and design motifs.
Variations in these specific textile attributes can carry implications for
understanding specialization in the production of garments of a parti-
cular type and size (garment type, dimensions), variation in cloth
quality (warp count and weft count) (Gleba, 2017, p. 1207), and access
to symbols (design motifs) that may have been “emblemic” (Wiessner,
1983) and thus associated with group identity. Many studies have ex-
plored the relationship between design motifs on textiles and group
identity (Boytner, 1998; Cassman, 1997; Franquemont, 1986; Rodman,
1992; Zorn, 1990).
Lastly, we compared patterns in yarn production and weaving
within our assemblage with that of other textile assemblages analyzed
in the Chincha Valley. We performed this comparison to develop un-
derstandings of underexplored Chincha cultural practices and modes of
differentiation.
This paper addresses the following research question: to what extent
does a textile assemblage from a single grave exhibit similar production
processes? This question is derived from the ethnographic and ar-
chaeological literature on Andean textiles discussed above. These
sources demonstrate that local communities of weavers oftentimes
learned and used textile production techniques in social contexts and in
the process, developed preferences in yarn production and weaving.
Rowe (2014, p. 159) summarizes this point. She notes that technical
features of textiles (e.g., spin direction, ply, weave structure) can serve
as reliable indicators of local communities of textile production because
J.L. Bongers et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236

Fig. 3. The location of UC-008 Tomb 1, indicated by a red arrow. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

Table 1
Radiocarbon measurements on samples from UC-008 Tomb 1 in the mid-Chincha Valley, Department of Ica, Province of Chincha, Peru.
Laboratory no. Sample designation Sample material δ13C (‰)e δ15N (‰)e C/N (atomic) > 30 kDa yield (%) 14
C (yrs. BP) Calibrated 14
C (2σ cal AD)b

UCIAMS-155763 UC-008, Tomb 1 Reeda −23.2 – – – 385 ± 15 1463–1517 (32.7%)

Chullpa (Bag #7015) 1540–1625 (62.7%)
a
UCIAMS-155764 UC-008, Tomb 1 Reed −24.2 – – – 350 ± 15 1502–1594 (79.4%)
Chullpa (Bag #7016) 1613–1638 (16%)
d
UCIAMS-180617 UC-008 Tomb 1 Bone −10.9 14.9 3.2 14.5 465 ± 15 1440–1480 (95.4%)
Chullpa (Bag #10230)
UCIAMS-183465 UC-008 Tomb 1 Bonec −12.0 15.4d 3.6 12.0 480 ± 15 1433–1460 (95.4%)
Chullpa (Bag #10229)

a
Reeds are likely Phragmites.
b
Calibration of the 14C age for each measurement utilized SHCal 13 and were conducted in the OxCal 4.3 program. Calibrated values are reported at the 2σ range.
c
This bone sample was decalcified, gelatinized at 60 °C and pH 2, and ultrafiltered to select a high molecular weight fraction (> 30 kDa). Since a previous aliquot
gave a high C:N ratio, this sample was sonicated in solvents to remove contaminants prior to decalcification: 2:1 chloroform/methanol (2 × 1 h), methanol (0.5 h),
MQ water (0.5 h). While the C:N ratio for this sample is high, suggesting that exogenous carbon may be present, it is within the accepted range of 2.9–3.6 provided by
DeNiro (1985).
d
Although δ15N values for these bone samples are elevated, suggesting possible marine consumption, other factors may have also contributed to these values. For
example, aridity and fertilizer can raise δ15N values in plants (Ambrose, 1991). Local faunal isotopic data are needed to act as a baseline when making interpretations
(Carmichael et al., 2014) and currently, we do not have these data for the Chincha Valley.
e
δ13C and δ15N values shown were measured to a precision of < 0.1‰ and < 0.2‰, respectively, on aliquots of ultrafiltered collagen, using a Fisons NA1500NC
elemental analyzer/Finnigan Delta Plus isotope ratio mass spectrometer.

they are usually “passed down from parent to child and repeated as a
matter of course,” making it more difficult for these features to be
copied outside local areas. Preferences or similarities in these technical
features can “result from the desire to conform to local norms or to new
and prestigious forms, or sometimes by fiat from the state” (Rowe,
2014, p. 159).
4. Methods and materials
4.1. Sampling methods and documenting textile attributes
Patterned and plain textiles were recovered from UC-008 Tomb 1.
We consider these to be distinct types of textiles based on the varying
amounts of labor required to produce them. Of the 470 textiles re-
covered, 121 were patterned and 349 were plain. These were placed in
separate sample bags. A total of 141 textiles (30% of the entire as-
semblage) were randomly sampled, yielding 105 plain and 36 patterned
textiles.
To analyze the textiles, we followed a step-wise procedure: first,
examining the overall structure of the textile; then, studying the
structure of the yarns used to make the textile; and finally, identifying
the fiber used to make each type of yarn (warp, weft, and any supple-
mental yarn) (Ballard and Skals, 1996; Good, 2001; Goodway, 1987;
Jakes, 2000; King, 1978; Walton and Eastwood, 1988).
Accordingly, the descriptive features of the textiles were examined
following Strand et al. (2010). The dimensions, shape, possible type,
and color of each textile were recorded first. If either the warp or the
weft selvage was incomplete, classifying the type and shape posed
difficulties. If enough of the textile remained to allow for a hypothetical
reconstruction, then an educated guess as to the shape and type was
made. If no complete selvage was present, we recorded the type and
shape as unknown. The best approximation of color was recorded, al-
though it is possible that many of the colors had faded considerably due
to prolonged exposure to the elements. Other features were also

227
J.L. Bongers et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236

recorded, such as the presence or absence of heading cords, and the Table 2
type of joining stitches found on some of the textiles that were com- Combinations of warp and weft spin (n = 141).
posed of multiple webs. Warp spin Weft spin N
Following this, we examined the weave structure of each textile
under a binocular stereomicroscope at various magnifications (from 10 S S 55
Z Z 41
to 30×) depending on the fineness of the weave. From this examina-
S Z 16
tion, spin and ply were recorded for all yarns in the textile, including Z S 10
any colored or supplemental yarns. Classification following Emery BOTH Z 9
(1966) was observed, with a 2-ply, S-spun, Z-plied textile recorded as BOTH S 8
“Z2S.” The term “single-ply” is used here for clarity to describe single BOTH BOTH 2

yarns considering the large number of paired warp textiles encountered

(Splitstoser, 2012, p. 3). A linen tester at 5× magnification was used on
spun warps and S-spun wefts (n = 55, Fig. 4) and proceeded to identify
a sufficiently preserved section of the textile to measure thread count
technique combinations of warp and weft ply within this sub-group.
per inch. To maintain consistency, warp and weft counts, length, and
There are 4 possible technique combinations of warp and weft ply in
width were recorded in inches.
this sub-group, and only 2 are represented: single-ply warps and single-
Finally, fiber identification was performed using polarized light
ply wefts (n = 54) and 2-ply and single-ply warps and single-ply wefts
microscopy at 100× – 200× magnification. We followed the method
(n = 1). At this stage in our analysis, we selected 1 “spin-ply sub-group”
outlined by Jakes (2000): that is, two fibers in different locations in the
of textiles with 1) S-spun warps and S-spun wefts and 2) single-ply
warp direction of the main yarn, two fibers from the weft direction of
warps and single-ply wefts (Fig. 4).
the main yarn, and two fibers from each of any other yarns used (for
Then, we examined the distribution of weave structures within this
example supplementary weft yarns, colored yarns along the warp sel-
sub-group. We denote whether warps are single or paired in our weave
vages, or construction stitching yarns) were extracted using a pair of
structure categories. For example, “1/1 plain” refers to plain weave
tweezers and the attachment clipped with a pair of scissors. Each fiber
structures with single warps and wefts, and “2/1 plain” refers to plain
was placed on a slide and a drop of water was wicked in underneath a
weave structures with paired warps and single wefts. “WRF” denotes
cover slip to act as a temporary mounting medium. The fibers were
warp-faced structures. There are 5 types of weave structures: 2/1 plain
examined under plane polarized and cross polarized light. Only two
(n = 31), 1/1 plain (n = 16), 2/2 plain (n = 3), 1/1 WRF plain (n = 3),
types of fibers were found to be used in the textiles: cotton and camelid
and 2/1 WRF plain (n = 3) (Fig. 4).
hair. All attributes were recorded in a spreadsheet (O'Shea and Bongers,
At this stage, we have identified five “spin-ply-weave sub-groups”
2018a).
with distinct combinations of techniques associated with both produc-
tion phases (Fig. 4). We consider them to be textile groups. We applied
4.2. Manual hierarchical classification method
these sub-grouping procedures to the other “spin-ply sub-group” not
included in the example (S-spun warps and S-spun wefts and 2-ply and
Our manual hierarchical classification method, conducted in the R
single-ply warps and single-ply wefts, n = 1) and the remaining six
programming platform (R Core Team, 2015), generated sub-groups of
“spin sub-groups” of textiles. We calculated the cumulative proportion
textiles with techniques associated with single or multiple production
of total textiles that were included in each one of these groups (Fig. 5)
steps (i.e. “spin sub-group,” “spin-ply sub-group,” and “spin-ply-weave
and selected a threshold of 0.71 for assigning certain textile groups as
sub-groups,” described below). Sub-groups of textiles displaying dis-
style groups. That is, those textile groups which comprise 71% of the
tinct, consistent combinations of yarn production and weaving techni-
analyzed textiles by count are labeled style groups. We selected this
ques are known as “textile groups.” By way of example, we demonstrate
threshold because it accounts for a representative percentage of the
our process for identifying the first 5 textile groups, two of which are
sampled textiles. Since the remaining textile groups have small sample
style groups (Fig. 4).
sizes that are equal to or < 5, we combined them into the “other textiles
We first identified nine possible combinations of warp and weft spin
group” for the purposes of this paper. Furthermore, unlike the style
in our assemblage and determined the counts of textiles with each of
groups, the other textiles group contains textiles with various techni-
these technique combinations. Only 7 of the 9 possible combinations
ques associated with the yarn processing and weaving phases of pro-
are represented (Table 2). These seven “spin sub-groups” feature dis-
duction (Table 3). It is treated as a discrete category, however, for
tinct combinations of warp and weft spin techniques.
comparative purposes in this paper.
Next, we chose one of these “spin sub-groups” of textiles with S-

Fig. 4. Diagram displaying the process of identifying the

first five textile groups. Different textile production steps
are numbered on the right side of the diagram. Different
sub-groups with techniques associated with single or
multiple production steps are labeled on the left side of
the diagram. Techniques associated with each textile
group are color coded. For example, Textile Group 1 is
green and red because it exhibits S-spun and single-ply
warps and wefts (green) and 2/1 plain weave (red). Only
Textile Group 1 and 2 are style groups. (For interpreta-
tion of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

228
J.L. Bongers et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236

Table 4
Counts of different garment types across textile groups.
Garment type

Textile group Loincloth Manta F/S Tunic Unknown

SG 1 8 9 3 4 7
SG 18 5 6 5 2 6
SG 2 1 10 1 0 2
SG 19 3 3 3 0 2
SG 7 2 4 2 0 1
SG 14 3 5 0 0 1
OT 7 12 6 1 12

Table 5
Counts of textiles with specific design features across groups.
Design feature

Textile Alternating Border Border/ Geometric Geometric/ Plain

group stripes fish motif fish motif
Fig. 5. Plot displaying count of textiles per textile group against cumulative
motif
proportion. Each data point represents a textile group. The red data point re-
presents the cumulative proportion cutoff (0.71) for including certain textile SG 1 1 1 0 0 1 28
groups as style groups, and the red dashed line indicates the 0.70 cumulative SG 18 1 3 1 1 0 18
proportion. All textile groups with counts of textiles equal to and > 9 are style SG 2 0 0 0 0 0 16
groups. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the SG 19 0 0 0 0 0 11
reader is referred to the web version of this article.) SG 7 0 0 0 0 0 9
SG 14 0 0 0 0 0 9
OT 2 15 1 0 0 23
4.3. Methods for exploratory analysis

After identifying our style groups, we employed various methods to
conduct exploratory analyses of our textile assemblage. These analyses
sought to 1) compare textile dimensions and warp and weft counts, 2)
evaluate the concentration of categories for garment type and design
motifs within different groups of textiles, and 3) compare results of an
independent hierarchical classification method for identifying style
groups with that of our previously described manual hierarchical
classification method.
To compare dimensions and warp and weft counts, we performed a
Dunnett's modified Tukey-Kramer pairwise multiple comparisons test,
which conducts multiple pairwise t-tests for mean differences with post-
hoc adjustment. This test does not make any assumptions regarding
equal population variances between groups and is not affected by un-
equal sample sizes (Dunnett, 1980), both of which are features of the
variables chosen for analysis within this sample assemblage of textiles.
The test was conducted to assess differences in mean length (in.), mean

Table 3
Counts and attributes of textile groups. Style groups are listed in bold. Textile groups not listed in bold constitute the other textiles group.
Textile group No. of textiles Warp spin Weft spin Warp ply Weft ply Weave structure

Textile group 1 31 S S Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain

Textile group 18 24 Z Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 2 16 S S Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 19 11 Z Z Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 7 9 Z S Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 14 9 S Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 26 5 S& Z Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 3 3 S S Single-ply Single-ply 2/2 plain
Textile group 4 3 S S Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 WRF plain
Textile group 12 3 S& Z S 2-ply and single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 15 3 S Z Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 28 3 S& Z Z 2-ply and single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 9 2 S& Z S Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 16 2 S Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 WFF plain
Textile group 17 2 S Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 WRF plain
Textile group 29 2 S& Z S&Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 5 1 S S Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 WRF plain
Textile group 6 1 S S 2-ply and single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 8 1 Z S Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 10 1 S& Z S Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 gauze
Textile group 11 1 S& Z S Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 13 1 S& Z S 2-ply and single-ply Single-ply 2/2 WRF plain
Textile group 20 1 Z Z Single-ply Single-ply 2/1 WRF plain
Textile group 21 1 Z Z Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 WFF plain
Textile group 22 1 Z Z 2-ply and single-ply Single-ply 2/1 plain
Textile group 23 1 Z Z 2-ply and single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 24 1 Z Z Single-ply 2-ply 2/1 WRF plain
Textile group 25 1 Z Z Single-ply 2-ply 1/1 plain
Textile group 27 1 S& Z Z Single-ply Single-ply 1/1 plain

229
J.L. Bongers et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236

Fig. 6. Textiles from the SG 1 (top row), SG 18 (middle row), and OT (bottom row): a) 8113 (reference number), tunic, 14.57 × 11.02 in., b) 8427.2, tunic,
18.50 × 14.57 in., c) 8199.122, loincloth, 37.80 × 16.14 in., d) 8199.1, tunic, 16.93 × 13.39 in., e) 8115, folded and sewn textile, 10.04 × 12.40 in., f) detail of
8200.1, loincloth, 40.94 (incomplete) × 21.65 in., g) 8200.1, h) 8123.2, manta, 22.83 × 22.44 in., i) 8199.5, folded and sewn square textile, 14.37 × 11.22 in., j)
8127.3, loincloth, 40.35 × 18.90 in.

Fig. 7. Boxplots showing the distributions of a) warp count/inch, b) weft count/inch, c) width (in.), and d) length (in.) between the style groups and the other textiles
group.

230
J.L. Bongers et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236

Fig. 8. Plots showing the 95% confidence intervals for a) mean warp count (in.), b) mean weft count (in.), c) mean width (in.), and d) mean length (in.).

width (in.), mean warp count per inch, and mean weft count per inch Moreover, we analyzed the joint co-occurrence of the aforemen-
among style groups and between style groups and the other textiles tioned production variables (weft spin, warp spin, etc.) on the textiles
group. A multiple comparisons test is necessary here in order to reduce using a Dice-Sørenson binary-distance matrix, and then used that dis-
the probability of obtaining a Type I error (a false positive) due to the tance matrix as the basis for a hierarchical clustering classification
number of style groups being compared, where it may be possible to using the “average linkage” method. The Dice-Sørenson (Dice, 1945)
obtain a significant difference “by chance” when none actually exists. similarity coefficient was developed in ecology and is widely used for
To analyze the diversity of types (e.g., garment type and design presence-absence data in cases where the presence of two zeros be-
motif) within the style groups and the other textiles group, we utilized tween two observations of one variable is not significant, i.e. the fact
the Inverse Simpson's index, which is a measure, in part, of the variance that a feature is not observed between two textiles does not mean that
of the abundance distribution of types (Magurran, 2004, pp. 114–115). those two textiles are more similar as a result of this shared absence.
That is, this index incorporates the abundance within each type as well Nevertheless, the index does not satisfy the triangle inequality for a true
as the spread, or evenness, of that abundance across style groups metric distance, and is therefore considered “semimetric” (Legendre
(Maurer and McGill, 2011, p. 56). The specific calculation of Simpson's and Legendre, 2012, pp. 274–276). In this case, the variables were re-
index utilized here is coded such that they were either absent or present (0/1) on each textile.
N For the hierarchical cluster analysis, the average linkage method was
1 chosen as it has been demonstrated that for clusters of unequal sample
= 1/ pi2.
D i 1 size, the average linkage and centroid may perform more consistently
(Kuiper and Fisher, 1975). The optimal number of clusters was de-
where pi is the proportion of type i and N represents the total number of
termined by using the silhouette-width method which measures the
style groups (Oksanen et al., 2018). The index will increase as a par-
degree of membership of each textile to its cluster based on the distance
ticular assemblage becomes more “even” in the abundance of the dif-
on average between this and all other clusters to which it belongs
ferent types that constitute it. A permutation method was utilized in
(Kaufman and Rousseeuw, 2009, pp. 83–86). The optimal number of
order to simulate ten thousand assemblages based on existing row and
clusters was 29, which is nearly the total, and this is likely due to the
column totals, and the Inverse Simpson's index values from each si-
binary nature of the recoded variables. As a result, 15 clusters were
mulated assemblage were compared to the index values from the actual
chosen as it represents a high silhouette width value (0.75) and is the
assemblage to determine the (summed) probability of acquiring the
point when the average silhouette width number begins to generate
observed index value (or greater) for a style group by chance. Finally, a
incremental additions to the total (see the supporting R code). These
bootstrap, which is a resampling with replacement of the existing data
fifteen clusters were then compared to those style groups identified
in cases where the data are drawn from an unknown probability dis-
through the manual hierarchical classification method discussed ear-
tribution, was applied to the data in order to estimate the 95% con-
lier.
fidence intervals for the Inverse Simpson's indices derived for each of
the style groups (Efron and Tibshirani, 1986; Tibshirani and Leisch,
2017).

231
J.L. Bongers et al.
Fig. 9. Plots showing the 95% confidence interval for mean Inverse Simpson's
value among design feature and garment type groups.
5. Results
Our methodology identified 29 sub-groups of textiles displaying
distinct combinations of yarn production and weaving techniques
(Table 3). Based on the 0.71 cumulative proportion cutoff, there are six
style groups in this distribution: Textile Group 1 (n = 31), 18 (n = 24),
2 (n = 16), 19 (n = 11), 7 (n = 9), and 14 (n = 9). We have renamed
them using a style group (SG) prefix: SG 1, SG 18, SG 2, SG 19, SG 7,
and SG 14. A total of 41 textiles do not fall into style groups; we placed
these textiles into the other textiles group, denoted by “OT” in sub-
sequent figures.
232
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
Fig. 11. A comparison of the identified style groups (y-axis) to the in-
dependently assessed clusters (x-axis) based on the hierarchical classification
method described in Section 5.3. The fill color represents a greater number of
positive matches between the style groups and the clusters assessed by the
hierarchical cluster analysis. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
5.1. Thread count and size
We calculated warp and weft counts for all but one of the textiles in
our sample (n = 140) because this single textile comprises multiple
fragments with varying thread counts (Fig. 7). SG 14 possesses the
lowest median warp count value (19), and SG 2 and 19 have the lowest
median weft count values (16). OT and SG 18 have the highest median
warp count (24), and SG 18 has the highest median weft count (21).
Regarding size, SG 19 displays the lowest median length value (16.44)
and SG 2 has the lowest median width value (12.99). SG 14 possesses
the highest median length value (23.23) and SG 18 exhibits the highest
median width value (20.38).
As mentioned previously, we performed a Dunnett's modified
Tukey-Kramer pairwise multiple comparison test to evaluate the extent
to which groups did or did not differ significantly in the mean values of
the selected attributes (warp count, weft count, length (in.), width
(in.)). Although the test mitigates the probability of obtaining a “sig-
nificant difference” between style groups when none exists, due to the
strictness of the raised alpha level of the test, the means between groups
will appear to be non-significant when the alternative may be true
(Dunnett, 1980, p. 800). In that respect, comparison of the confidence
intervals between the style groups for each of these variables may give
the appearance of significant differences between groups (Fig. 8).
Nevertheless, of the twenty-one pairwise comparisons between the four
Fig. 10. A heatmap illustrating the resolved dendrogram
for the hierarchical clustering (average linkage) using the
Dice-Sørenson distance method. The colors directly be-
neath the leaves of the dendrogram correspond to the
k = 15 different cluster groups identified by the average-
distance clustering algorithm. The variables informing
the clustering are located on the right (rows). “WF” and
“WR” refer to weft and warp respectively. The spin di-
rection of a warp or weft is denoted by “S” (S-spun), “Z”
(Z-spun), or “B” (both S-spun and Z-spun). The ply of a
warp or weft is denoted by “1P” (single-ply), “2P” (2-ply),
and “2_1P” (single-ply and 2-ply). Each column re-
presents an individual textile. Within the heatmap grid,
red signifies that an attribute is present, and blue that an
attribute is absent. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
J.L. Bongers et al.
attributes, none of the means of each attribute between the style groups
were significantly different at an alpha of 0.05, although the upper
bound of the confidence interval for OT, SG 2, and SG 1 in warp count,
and SG 19, SG 18, and OT in weft count, barely included zero, in-
dicating a present but weak effect (see supporting files).
5.2. Garment type and design
There are four garment types: manta, tunic, “folded and sewn
square textile,” loincloth, and unknown. “Folded and sewn square
textile” (F/S) refers to a distinct garment type that may be a repurposed
loincloth or perhaps a head covering. It is a long rectangle that is folded
in the middle and sewn along one edge, forming a square with an
opening. There is a wide distribution of garment types in the textile
groups (Table 4) (O'Shea and Bongers, 2018b). Loincloths, mantas, and
textiles of unknown garment type are found in all groups of textiles,
while folded and sewn square textiles are present in all groups of tex-
tiles except SG 14 and tunics are only found in SG 1, SG 18, and OT.
We also identified the distribution of different design motifs
(Table 5) (O'Shea and Bongers, 2018c). Six categories of motifs were
defined: plain, border, border/fish motif, geometric/fish motif, geo-
metric motif, and alternating stripes. Textiles labeled as “plain” do not
exhibit any design motifs. “Border” refers to colored vertical stripes
positioned near ends of textiles. Textiles with “alternating stripes”
feature either plaid or multiple stripe designs. The remaining categories
refer to varying combinations of geometric, fish-like, and border motifs.
SG 1, SG 18, and OT are the only groups that contain design motifs. SG
18 contains four different types of motifs, including the following ca-
tegories: border, alternating stripes, border/fish motif (see Fig. 6), and
geometric motif. SG 1 features textiles with border, alternating stripes,
and geometric/fish motifs. OT contains the most textiles with borders
(15) alongside two textiles with alternating stripes and 1 textile with a
border/fish motif.
The results of the bootstrapped Inverse Simpson indices by group
reveal wide-confidence intervals for each of the style groups with
varying design features (design feature groups) and garment types
(garment type groups) (Fig. 9). Each style group contains relatively low
Inverse Simpson's values, particularly among those in the design feature
group category, indicating a high level of dominance by a particular
type in each group. For instance, SG 14 has a very low average Inverse
Simpson's value among the design feature groups since it is solely
composed of one design type (“plain”). In contrast, in the garment type
groups, the Inverse Simpson index values tend to be high, and the
confidence intervals are correspondingly high. This makes it difficult to
determine the extent to which a style group's distribution of design
features or garment types is possibly more even. Only a couple of
garment type groups have relatively tight confidence intervals and high
Inverse Simpson's values (SG 1 and SG 18). Furthermore, the permu-
tation method revealed that among garment type groups, the observed
Inverse Simpson's index value for SG 18 occurred with low probability
(p = 0.0244), suggesting that SG 18 has a nonrandom and diverse as-
semblage of garment types.
5.3. Comparison to the dice-based average linkage hierarchical
classification model
As described previously, the use of an independent hierarchical
clustering algorithm based on the Dice-Sørenson distance measure
yielded anywhere between two and thirty clusters. The three major
initial branches of the dendrogram appear to be grouped around whe-
ther the S or Z warp or weft spin is used. For example, one of the larger
groups identified (the light blue group in the right on Fig. 10) is de-
marcated by containing the following variables: S warp spin, S weft
spin, single-ply warp, single-ply weft, and 2/1 plain. In contrast, the
leftmost branch of the dendrogram includes most of those textiles that
seem to have a less typical combination of production techniques with
233
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
respect to the other analyzed textiles. The results of the cluster analysis
are also largely in accord with the previous manual hierarchical clas-
sification method (Fig. 11). The majority of those textiles that were
assigned to SG 1, for instance, almost all overlapped with those iden-
tified to be part of cluster one (the light blue group in Fig. 10).
Nevertheless, there were some style groups which differed from the
classification model, such as SG 14, which overlapped entirely with
cluster ten, and yet which the algorithm added seven additional textiles
classified as OT. It is important to note that other distance measures and
clustering algorithms (median, centroid, etc.) will yield different re-
solved dendrograms, even if the divergences are only minor, and
therefore this analysis does not constitute an “objective” comparison,
but rather a complement to the previously described process of itera-
tively filtering the textiles based on certain attributes.
5.4. Comparison to Lower Chincha Valley textiles
Data from the textile assemblage from UC-008 Tomb 1 are con-
sistent with technical and design trends associated with lower Chincha
Valley textiles. O'Neale et al. (1949) analyzed cotton plain weave tex-
tiles recovered from Uhle's (1924) excavations of lower valley graves.
They find that most textiles in their assemblage (62 out of 112) feature
paired warps and single wefts and that striping is a primary form of
colored decoration (O'Neale et al., 1949). Garaventa (1979) conducted
analyses on 13 textiles found in five graves excavated by Uhle (1924).
She notes that 1) borders are frequent design motifs, 2) the most
common weave structure is plain weave with paired warps, and 3) most
cotton yarns are single-ply and spun in the S direction. Fattorini (1984)
analyzed 127 loose threads and 42 fragments of cloth recovered from
the site of Lo Demás, excavated by Sandweiss (1992). Fattorini's (1984)
data show that all textiles are woven in the plain weave structure, and
that most of these textiles exhibit paired warps and single wefts.
Our data reveal that 1) 64% (90 out of 141) of textiles from UC-008
Tomb 1 display the plain weave structure with paired warps, 2) 63%
exhibit warps and wefts spun in the S direction, and that 3) borders are
found on 19 textiles, representing the most frequent design motif. These
trends are in accord with previous research performed on lower
Chincha Valley textiles. These data suggest that textile techniques and
design were broadly shared across the Chincha Valley.
6. Discussion and conclusion
We developed a methodology for identifying style groups in textile
assemblages, performed an exploratory analysis of textiles sampled
from a single Andean grave in the mid-Chincha Valley, and compared
this assemblage to other textile assemblages in the Chincha Valley.
Textile production processes are social processes where learning and
use of techniques are mediated by communities and individuals within
social environments. Textiles displaying consistent combinations of
techniques across the textile production process are emblematic of
technological styles and specific “ways of doing” that oftentimes dis-
tinguish communities of weavers. These notions informed our manual
hierarchical classification method.
This method was employed to filter textiles exhibiting consistent use
of techniques associated with the yarn production and weaving stages
of the textile production process. Our analyses identified a total of 29
textile groups. Among these groups, we identified six style groups that
encompass 71% of our assemblage. These results indicate an overall
high degree of variation in textile production processes. We drew upon
scholarship on technology and chaîne opératoire, non-discursive
knowledge, learning, and motor skills, ethnographic and archaeological
studies of Andean textiles, and written accounts of textile production to
fulfill our research goals and interpret our data. Although we argue that
multiple communities of weavers consistently produced most textiles in
this assemblage from the Late Horizon to the Colonial Period, other
models can also explain these data. For example, we cannot rule out
J.L. Bongers et al.
that a single community of weavers may have experimented with and
employed various techniques to produce these different kinds of tex-
tiles. This paper contributes to this scholarship by providing an Andean
case study that demonstrates how multiple communities of weavers,
perhaps even local households, may have been involved in the pro-
duction of a technically varied and consistently made assemblage of
textiles from a single grave.
Our exploratory analysis offers additional tantalizing information
on communities of textile production in the mid-Chincha Valley.
Results show no statistically significant differences in mean warp count,
mean weft count, mean length, and mean width between the style
groups and the other textiles group. If we consider thread count as a
marker of cloth quality (Gleba, 2017, p. 1207), these findings suggest
minimal, if any, variations in cloth quality among communities of
weavers. The data reveal low variation in size, suggesting that com-
munities broadly produced similarly sized textiles. Our findings also
indicate mostly broad confidence intervals of mean Inverse Simpson's
values for design feature and garment type groups that can be explained
by chance. Only the wide distribution of garment types in SG 18 ap-
pears non-randomly diverse. These data suggest that at least one
community of weavers in the mid-Chincha Valley did not necessarily
specialize in the production of specific garment types. Lastly, a Dice-
based average linkage hierarchical cluster analysis was used to analyze
the joint co-occurrence of yarn production and weaving techniques.
This analysis produced some clusters that strongly overlap with our
style groups (e.g., cluster one and SG 1), and other clusters that differ
from them (e.g., cluster ten and SG 14). This cluster analysis serves as a
complement to our manual hierarchical classification method.
Comparison between the textile assemblage from UC-008 Tomb 1
and lower Chincha Valley textiles reveals similarities in weave struc-
ture, spin direction, and the use of the border motif. In particular, the
predominance of the 2/1 plain weave structure in our sample and in
lower Chincha Valley textiles is peculiar as this is commonly linked
with the north coast Chimú textile style (Rowe and O'Neill, 1984, p.
24). There are several models to explain these patterns. Given that the
2/1 plain weave structure is documented in the lower and mid-valleys,
this technique may not be connected to the Chimú textile style, but
rather may be derived from a local Chincha style. Communities in both
areas may have communicated their shared affiliation to the Chincha
Kingdom by producing textiles with the 2/1 plain weave structure. The
2/1 plain weave structure may also indicate the presence of a north
coast mitmaq (a group of non-local colonists). Because the Inca resettled
north coast groups in the Cañete and Ica Valleys (Marcus, 2008, p. 7;
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, 1978, p. 166), both of which border the
Chincha Valley, it is possible that these groups were also resettled in
Chincha or somehow made their way to Chincha. These groups would
have likely brought their local textile traditions, which probably fea-
tured the 2/1 plain weave structure, with them to the southern coast.
Alternatively, local Chincha groups may have been influenced by the
textile traditions of north coast mitmaqkuna or exchanged with these
non-local groups to obtain their textiles. This is unlikely, however,
given the difficulty in emulating spinning and weaving techniques from
outside local areas where they are learned and ingrained as motor skills
(Minar, 2001; Rowe, 2014, p. 159).
The main contribution of this paper is a methodology for closely
examining technical features of textiles and identifying style groups. We
used it to broaden our understanding of communities of textile pro-
duction in the Chincha Valley. This methodology can also be applied
outside of Andean textiles: it will work to discern patterns in other
assemblages of well-preserved textiles and reveal insights into other
communities of textile production.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Peruvian Ministry of Culture for granting us
the permit (206-2013-DGPC-VMPCIC/MC) that allowed us to conduct
234
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
this study. The authors also thank the Institute of Field Research and
the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and recognize the support of Henry
Tantaleán and Charles Stanish for co-directing the Programa
Arqueológico Chincha (PACH). Many thanks to Henry for also co-di-
recting the fieldwork involved in this study. Kelita Pérez, Alexis
Rodríguez Yábar, and all other students and staff of the Chincha
Archaeological Field School assisted us at every stage of the research
process. Terrah Jones, Susanna Seidensticker, and Brittany Jackson
helped collect the textiles featured in this study. Ran Boytner and Hans
Barnard provided advice regarding textile analysis. Thanks to Erv
Taylor and the staff at the W.M. Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Lab at UC
Irvine for conducting radiocarbon analysis. Hans Barnard, Charles
Stanish, and four anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments
that improved this paper. Bongers is grateful for support from the
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under
Grant No. DGE-1144087, the Ford Foundation Fellowship Program, the
National Geographic Young Explorers Grant Program under Grant No.
9347-13, and the Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid Research Program. O'Shea
gratefully acknowledges support from the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation and the SUNY Buffalo State Art Conservation Department.
References
Ambrose, S.H., 1991. Effects of diet, climate and physiology on nitrogen isotope abun-
dances in terrestrial foodwebs. J. Archaeol. Sci. 18, 293–317.
Ballard, M., Skals, I., 1996. Masking and misinterpreting cotton fibers: dangers associated
with the fiber analysis of archaeological textiles. Stud. Conserv. 41, 6–10.
Bird, J.B., 1979. Fibers and spinning procedures in the andean area. In: Rowe, A.P.,
Benson, E.P., Schaffer, A.-L. (Eds.), The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile
Conference. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., pp. 13–18.
Bolin, I., 2006. Growing up in a Culture of Respect: Child Rearing in Highland Peru.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bongers, J., Arkush, E., Harrower, M., 2012. Landscapes of death: GIS-based analyses of
chullpas in the western Lake Titicaca basin. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 1687–1693.
Boytner, R., 1998. Textiles from the lower Osmore Valley, southern Peru: a cultural in-
terpretation. Andean Past 5, 18.
Boytner, R., 2004. Clothing the social world. In: Silverman, H. (Ed.), Andean
Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 130–145.
Brezine, C., 2013. A change of dress on the coast of Peru: technological and material
hybridity in colonial Peruvian textiles. In: Card, J.J. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Hybrid
Material Culture, Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 39.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 239–259.
Brown, V., 2008. The Reaper's Garden: Death and Power in the World of Atlantic Slavery.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1998. The multiple identities of Aztec specialists. In: Wright, R.P., Costin,
C.L. (Eds.), Craft and Social Identity: Archaeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, pp.
145–152.
Budden, S., Sofaer, J., 2009. Non-discursive knowledge and the construction of identity
potters, potting and performance at the Bronze Age tell of Százhalombatta, Hungary.
Camb. Archaeol. J. 19, 203–220.
Canziani, J., 2009. Ciudad y Territorio en los Andes: Contribuciones a la Historia del
Urbanismo Prehispánico (Fondo Editorial). Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Lima, Perú.
Carmichael, P.H., Kennedy, B.V., Cadwallader, L., 2014. Coastal but not littoral: marine
resources in Nasca diet. Ñawpa Pacha 34, 3–26.
Carr, C., 1995. A unified middle-range theory of artifact design. In: Carr, C., Neitzel, J.E.
(Eds.), Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives.
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 171–258.
Cassman, V., 1997. A Reconsideration of Prehistoric Ethnicity and Status in Northern
Chile: The Textile Evidence. Arizona State University.
Clark, J.E., Parry, W.J., 1990. Craft specialization and cultural complexity. Res. Econ.
Anthropol. 12, 289–346.
Cobo, B., 1979 [1653]. History of the Inca Empire: An Account of the Indians' Customs
and their Origin, Together With a Treatise on Inca Legends, History, and Social
Institutions. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Conkey, M.W., Hastorf, C.A., 1990. The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Conklin, W.J., 1975. Pampa gramalote textiles. In: Fiske, P.L. (Ed.), Archaeological
Textiles: Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles. The Textile Museum,
Washington D.C., pp. 77–92.
Conklin, W.J., 1979. Moche textile structures. In: Rowe, A.P., Benson, E.P., Schaffer, A.-L.
(Eds.), The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington D.C, pp. 165–184.
Costin, C.L., 1995. Cloth production and gender relations in the Inka empire. In:
Peregrine, P., Ember, C., Ember, M. (Eds.), Research Frontiers in Anthropology -
Advances in Archaeology and Physical Anthropology. Prentice Hall, Eaglewood
Cliffs, pp. 55–80.
Costin, C.L., 1998a. Introduction: craft and social identity. In: Wright, R.P., Costin, C.L.
J.L. Bongers et al.
(Eds.), Craft and Social Identity: Archaeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, pp.
3–16.
Costin, C.L., 1998b. Housewives, chosen women, skilled men: cloth production and social
identity in the Late Prehispanic Andes. Archeol. Pap. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 8,
123–141.
Costin, C.L., 2001. Craft production systems. In: Feinman, G., Price, T.D. (Eds.),
Archaeology at the Millennium. Springer, Boston, pp. 273–327.
Crespo, J.C., 1975. La relación de Chincha (1558). Hist. Cult. 8, 91–104.
Curátola, M., 1997. Guano: una hipótesis sobre el origen de la riqueza del Señorío de
Chincha. In: Varón Gabai, R., Flores Espinoza, J. (Eds.), Arqueología, Antropología, e
Historia En Los Andes: Homenaje a María Rostworowski. Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos, Lima, pp. 224–239.
de Betanzos, J., 1996 [1551]. Narrative of the Incas. University of Texas Press, Austin.
DeNiro, M.J., 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen
isotope ratios in relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 306, 806–809.
Dice, L.R., 1945. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology
26, 297–302.
Dillehay, T.D. (Ed.), 1995. Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices. Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
Dobres, M.-A., 2000. Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for
Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Dransart, P., 2002. Earth, Water, Fleece, and Fabric: A Long-Term Ethnography of
Camelid Herding in the Andes. Routledge, London.
Dunnett, C.W., 1980. Pairwise multiple comparisons in the unequal variance case. J. Am.
Stat. Assoc. 75, 796–800.
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R., 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence inter-
vals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat. Sci. 1, 1–35.
Emery, I., 1966. The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrated Classification. The
Textile Museum, Washington D.C.
Fattorini, G., 1984. Estudio del material textil de Proyecto Arqueológico Pescadores de
Chincha.
Fitzsimmons, J.L., Shimada, I., 2011. Living With the Dead: Mortuary Ritual in
Mesoamerica. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Franquemont, E.M., 1986. Cloth production rates in Chinchero, Peru. In: Rowe, A.P. (Ed.),
The Junius B. Bird Conference on Andean Textiles. The Textile Museum, Washington
D.C., pp. 309–330.
Franquemont, E.M., Franquemont, C., Isbell, B.J., 1992. Awaq nawin: el ojo del tejedor, la
practica de la cultura en el tejido. Rev. Andin. 10, 47–80.
Garaventa, D.M., 1979. Chincha textiles of the Late Intermediate Period, Epoch 8. In:
Rowe, A.P., Benson, E.P., Schaffer, A.-L. (Eds.), The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian
Textile Conference. The Textile Museum and Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C., pp.
219–232.
Gero, J.M., 1992. Feasts and females: gender ideology and political meals in the Andes.
Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 25, 15–30.
Gleba, M., 2017. Tracing textile cultures of Italy and Greece in the early first millennium
BC. Antiquity 91, 1205–1222.
Good, I., 2001. Archaeological textiles: a review of current research. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 30, 209–226.
Goodell, G., 1968. A study of Andean spinning in the Cuzco Region. Text. Museum J.
2, 2–8.
Goodway, M., 1987. Fiber identification in practice. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 26, 27–44.
Guamán Poma de Ayala, F., 1980 [1615]. El primer Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno.
Siglo Veintiuno, México, D.F.
Hendon, J.A., 2006. Textile production as craft in Mesoamerica: time, labor and knowl-
edge. J. Soc. Archaeol. 6, 354–378.
Isbell, W.H., 1997. Mummies and Mortuary Monuments: A Postprocessual Prehistory of
Central Andean Social Organization. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Jakes, K.A., 2000. Microanalytical methods for the study of prehistoric textile fibers. In:
Drooker, P.B., Webster, L.D. (Eds.), Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological
Textile Research in the Americas. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 51–68.
Julien, C.J., 1983. Hatunqolla, A View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Region.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Julien, C.J., 2008. On the beginning of the Late Horizon. Ñawpa Pacha 29.
Kaufman, L., Rousseeuw, P.J., 2009. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster
Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
King, M.E., 1978. Analytical methods and prehistoric textiles. Am. Antiq. 43, 89–96.
Kuiper, F.K., Fisher, L., 1975. A Monte Carlo comparison of six clustering procedures.
Biometrics 31, 777–783.
Lechtman, H., 1993. Technologies of Power: The Andean case. In: Henderson, J.S.,
Netherly, P.J. (Eds.), Configurations of Power: Holistic Anthropology in Theory and
Practice. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 244–280.
Legendre, P., Legendre, L., 2012. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Lemonnier, P., 1986. The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of
technical systems. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 5, 147–186.
Lemonnier, P., 1992. Technology and Anthropology, in: Elements for an Anthropology of
Technology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 1–24.
Lemonnier, P. (Ed.), 2013. Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures
Since the Neolithic. Routledge, London.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1943. Evolution et Techniques. A. Michel, Paris.
Magurran, A.E., 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
Mantha, A., 2009. Territoriality, social boundaries and ancestor veneration in the central
Andes of Peru. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 28, 158–176.
Marcus, J., 2008. Excavations at Cerro Azul, Peru: The Architecture and Pottery. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology (UCLA), Los Angeles.
Marsh, E.J., Kidd, R., Ogburn, D., Durán, V., 2017. Dating the expansion of the Inca
235
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
empire: Bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina. Radiocarbon 1–24.
Maurer, B.A., McGill, B.J., 2011. Measurement of species diversity. In: Magurran, A.E.,
McGill, B.J. (Eds.), Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 55–65.
Mauss, M., 2006. Les techniques du corps. In: Schlanger, N. (Ed.), Marcel Mauss:
Techniques, Technology, and Civilization. Durkheim Press, Oxford, pp. 77–95.
Medlin, M.A., 1986. Learning to weave in Calcha, Bolivia. In: The Junius B (Ed.), Bird
Conference on Andean Textiles. The Textile Museum, Washington D.C., pp. 275–288.
Meisch, L.A., 1998. Spinning. In: Rowe, A.P. (Ed.), Costume and Identity in Highland
Ecuador. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., pp. 21–22.
Menzel, D., Rowe, J.H., 1966. The role of Chincha in Late Pre-Spanish Peru. Ñawpa Pacha
4, 63–76.
Minar, C.J., 2001. Motor skills and the learning process: the conservation of cordage final
twist direction in communities of practice. J. Anthropol. Res. 57, 381–405.
Moseley, M.E., 1992. The Incas and Their Ancestors: The Archaeology of Peru. Thames
and Hudson, New York.
Murra, J.V., 1962. Cloth and its functions in the Inca state. Am. Anthropol. 64, 710–728.
Nielsen, A.E., 2008. The materiality of ancestors: chullpas and social memory in the Late
Prehispanic history of the south Andes. In: Mills, B.J., Walker, W.H. (Eds.), Memory
Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices. School for Advanced Research Press,
Santa Fe, pp. 207–231.
Nielsen, A.E., 2016. The Role of Chullpas in the Inca Conquest of the Southern Altiplano:
A Symmetrical Approach. 81st Annu. Meet. Soc. Am. Archaeol.
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlin, D., Minchin,
P.R., O'Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H., Szoecs, E., Wagner,
H., 2018. Vegan: Community Ecology Package.
O'Neale, L.M., Bacon, E., Gemmer, C.W., Hall, R.V., Johnson, I.W., Osborne, C.M., Ross,
M.B., 1949. Chincha Plain-Weave Cloths, University of California, Berkeley,
Anthropological Records. University of California Press, Berkeley.
O'Shea, C., Bongers, J.L., 2018a. UC_008_All_Textiles_Final.
O'Shea, C., Bongers, J.L., 2018b. Garment_Type_Table_Groups.
O'Shea, C., Bongers, J.L., 2018c. Design_Feature_Table_Groups.
Peters, A.H., 2014. Paracas necropolis: communities of textile production, exchange
networks and social boundaries in the Central Andes, 150 BC to AD 250. In: Arnold,
D., Dransart, P. (Eds.), Textiles, Technical Practice and Power in the Andes.
Archetype London, London, pp. 109–139.
Phipps, E., 2013. The Peruvian Four-Selvaged Cloth: Ancient Threads/New Directions.
Fowler Museum, Los Angeles.
Quinn, C.P., 2015. Returning and reuse: diachronic perspectives on multi-component
cemeteries and mortuary politics at Middle Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Tara,
Ireland. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 37, 1–18.
Reycraft, R.M., 2005. Us and Them: Archaeology and Ethnicity in the Andes. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Rodman, A.O., 1992. Textiles and ethnicity: Tiwanaku in San Pedro de Atacama, North
Chile. Lat. Am. Antiq. 3, 316–340.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, M., 1978. Guarco y Lunaguana: dos señoríos
prehispánicos de la costa sur central del Perú. Rev. Del Mus. Nac. 44, 153–214.
Rowe, J.H., 1945. Absolute chronology in the Andean area. Am. Antiq. 10, 265–284.
Rowe, A.P. (Ed.), 1998. Costume and Identity in Highland Ecuador. The Textile Museum,
Washington D.C.
Rowe, A.P., 2014. Technical reflections of highland-coastal relationships in Late Pre-
Hispanic tunics from Chillon and Chancay. In: Arnold, D.Y., Dransart, P. (Eds.),
Textiles, Technical Practice, and Power in the Andes. Archetype Publications,
London, pp. 159–191.
Rowe, A.P., Cohen, J., 2002. Hidden Threads of Peru: Q'ero Textiles. Merrell, London.
Rowe, A.P., O'Neill, J.P., 1984. Costumes & Featherwork of the Lords of Chimor: Textiles
From Peru's North Coast. Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.
Sackett, J.R., 1977. The meaning of style in archaeology: a general model. Am. Antiq. 42,
369–380.
Sackett, J.R., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 1,
59–112.
Sackett, J.R., 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism. In:
Conkey, M., Hastorf, C. (Eds.), The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 32–43.
Sandweiss, D.H., 1992. The Archaeology of Chincha Fishermen: Specialization and Status
in Inka Peru. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh.
Sandweiss, D.H., Reid, D.A., 2015. Negotiated subjugation: maritime trade and the in-
corporation of Chincha into the Inca empire. J. Isl. Coast. Archaeol. 1–15.
Shimada, I., Fitzsimmons, J.L., 2015. Living With the Dead in the Andes. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Splitstoser, J.C., 2009. Weaving the Structure of the Cosmos: Cloth, Agency, and
Worldview at Cerrillos, an Early Paracas Site in the Ica Valley, Peru. The Catholic
University of America.
Splitstoser, J.C., 2012. The Parenthetical Notation Method for Recording Yarn Structure,
in: Textiles and Politics: Textile Society of America 13th Biennial Symposium
Proceedings. Washington D.C.
Stanish, C., 2012. Above-ground tombs in the Circum-Titicaca basin. In: Advances in
Titicaca Basin Archaeology-III. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 203–220.
Strand, E.A., Frei, K.M., Gleba, M., Mannering, U., Nosch, M.-L., Skals, I., 2010. Old
textiles–new possibilities. Eur. J. Archaeol. 13, 149–173.
Tantaleán, H., 2006. Regresar para construir: prácticas funerarias e ideología(s) durante
la ocupación inka en Cutimbo, Puno-Perú. Chungará 38, 129–143.
Team, R.D.C., 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Tiballi, A., 2010. Imperial Subjectivities: The Archaeological Materials From the
Cemetery of the Sacrificed Women, Pachacamac, Peru. State University of New York
J.L. Bongers et al.
at Binghamton.
Tibshirani, R., Leisch, F., 2017. Bootstrap: Functions for the Book “An Introduction to the
Bootstrap”.
Uhle, M., 1924. Explorations at Chincha. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology.
Velasco, M., 2016. Mortuary Tradition and Social Transformation during the Late
Intermediate Period (A.D. 1100–1450): A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Above-
Ground Burials in the Colca Valley, Peru. Vanderbilt University.
Verdery, K., 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Wallace, D.T., 1979. The process of weaving development on the Peruvian coast. In:
Rowe, A.P., Benson, E.P., Schaffer, A.-L. (Eds.), The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian
Textile Conference. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., pp. 27–50.
236
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22 (2018) 223–236
Walton, P., Eastwood, G., 1988. A Brief Guide to the Cataloguing of Archaeological
Textiles. Institute of Archaeology, London.
Wiessner, P., 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. Am.
Antiq. 48, 253–276.
Wiessner, P., 1984. Reconsidering the behavioral basis for style: a case study among the
Kalahari San. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 3, 190–234.
Wobst, H.M., 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In: Griffin, J.B., Cleland,
C.E. (Eds.), For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 317–342.
Zorn, E.L., 1990. Modern traditions: the impact of the trade in traditional textiles on the
Sakaka of Northern Potosí, Bolivia. In: Proceedings of the Textile Society of America
Biennial Symposium. Textile Society of America, Washington D.C., pp. 241–252.