Ceramics of the Indigenous Cultures of

South America Studies of Production

and Exchange through Compositional
Analysis Michael D. Glascock (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ceramics-of-the-indigenous-cultures-of-south-america
-studies-of-production-and-exchange-through-compositional-analysis-michael-d-glasc
ock-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Indigenous Peoples of Mesoamerica and Central

America Their Societies Cultures and Histories 1st
Edition Robert M. Carmack

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-indigenous-peoples-of-
mesoamerica-and-central-america-their-societies-cultures-and-
histories-1st-edition-robert-m-carmack/

North of America Loyalists Indigenous Nations and the

Borders of the Long Revolution 1st Edition Jeffers
Lennox

https://ebookmeta.com/product/north-of-america-loyalists-
indigenous-nations-and-the-borders-of-the-long-revolution-1st-
edition-jeffers-lennox/

Resources for South Asian Area Studies in the United

States: Report of a Conference Convened by the
Committee on South Asia of the Association for Asian
Studies for the U.S. Office of Education Richard D.
Lambert (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/resources-for-south-asian-area-
studies-in-the-united-states-report-of-a-conference-convened-by-
the-committee-on-south-asia-of-the-association-for-asian-studies-
for-the-u-s-office-of-education-richar/

Multi ethnic Bird Guide of the Sub Antarctic Forests of

South America Ricardo Rozzi

https://ebookmeta.com/product/multi-ethnic-bird-guide-of-the-sub-
antarctic-forests-of-south-america-ricardo-rozzi/
Cultural Landscapes of South Asia Studies in Heritage
Conservation and Management 1st Edition Kapila D. Silva
(Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cultural-landscapes-of-south-asia-
studies-in-heritage-conservation-and-management-1st-edition-
kapila-d-silva-editor/

An Analysis of Production of Worsted Sales Yarn Alfred

H. Williams

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-analysis-of-production-of-
worsted-sales-yarn-alfred-h-williams/

The Lives in Objects Native Americans British Colonists

and Cultures of Labor and Exchange in the Southeast 1st
Edition Jessica Yirush Stern

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-lives-in-objects-native-
americans-british-colonists-and-cultures-of-labor-and-exchange-
in-the-southeast-1st-edition-jessica-yirush-stern/

Scribal Practice and the Global Cultures of Colophons,

1400–1800 Christopher D. Bahl (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/scribal-practice-and-the-global-
cultures-of-colophons-1400-1800-christopher-d-bahl-editor/

America s Few Marine Aces of the South Pacific 1st

Edition Yenne

https://ebookmeta.com/product/america-s-few-marine-aces-of-the-
south-pacific-1st-edition-yenne/
C E R A M IC S OF T H E I N DIGE NOUS C U LT U R E S OF S OU T H A M E R IC A
 Ceramics of the Indigenous
Cultures of South America
Studies of Production and Exchange
through Compositional Analysis

Edited by
M i c h a e l D. G l a s c o c k , H e c t o r N e f f , a n d K e v i n J . Vau g h n

U n i v er sit y of N ew M e x ico Pr e ss · A l buqu erqu e

 © 2019 by the University of New Mexico Press
All rights reserved. Published 2019
Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress ­Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data

Names: Glascock, Michael, editor. | Neff, Hector, editor. | Vaughn, Kevin J., editor.
Title: Ceramics of the indigenous cultures of South America: studies of production and exchange
through compositional analysis / edited by Michael D. Glascock, Hector Neff, and Kevin J. Vaughn.
Description: Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018055939 (print) | LCCN 2018056153 (e-book) | ISBN 9780826360298 (e-book) |
ISBN 9780826360281 (pbk.: alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Indian pottery—South America. | Indians of South America—Antiquities. | South America—Antiquities. |
Archaeological chemistry. | Archaeometry.
Classification: LCC F2230.1.P8 (e-book) | LCC F2230.1.P8 C47 2019 (print) | DDC 980/.01 —dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018055939

Cover photograph courtesy of Fotosearch

Composed in Minion Pro
 Contents

List of Illustrations ix
Preface and Acknowledgments xv

Chapter One. Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics 1

Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Two. Pottery Production and Consumption in the ­Andean-­Amazonian

Frontier of Southwestern Colombia (2500–500 BP) 15
Hernando J. Gir aldo, Robert J. Speakman, Michael D.
Glascock, and Alejandr a M. Gudiño

Chapter Three. Cultural Implications of Instrumental Neutron Activation

Analysis of Ceramics from Palmitopamba, Ecuador 25
Ronald D. Lippi and Alejandr a M. Gudiño

Chapter Four. Fabric and Culture: Technological Change in Ecuadorian ­Finger-­Painted Pottery 37
Maria A. Masucci, Hector Neff, Michael D. Glascock, and Robert J. Speakman

Chapter Five. Crafting Beer Jars for the Inca on the North Coast of Peru 51
Fr ances Hayashida

Chapter Six. Early Horizon Cupisnique Ceramic Production in Pomac, North Coast
of Peru: The Role of Archaeometry in Its Holistic Understanding 55
Izumi Shimada

Chapter Seven. Was Huacas de Sicán a Pilgrimage Center? Results from

Compositional Analysis of Serving Vessels from the Great Plaza 59
Go Matsumoto

v
vi Contents

Chapter Eight. Chemical Characterization and Patterns of Ceramic

Movement in the Cajamarca Region of Northern Peru 73
Jason L. Toohey

Chapter Nine. Inca Craft and Ritual Production: Compositional Analysis of

Ceramic Pigments from the Temple of the Sun, Pachacamac 87
James A. Davenport

Chapter Ten. The Analysis of Inca Pottery from the Cuzco Region: Implications for
the Provisioning of Ceramics for Machu Picchu and Other Inca Sites 97
Richard L. Burger, Lucy C. Salazar, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Eleven. 1,500 Years of Pottery Production in the Nasca Region of Peru:
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis from the Site of La Tiza 113
Christina A. Conlee, Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Twelve. Wari Ceramic Production in the Heartland and Provinces 125
Patrick Ryan Williams, Donna Nash, Anita Cook,
William Isbell, and Robert J. Speakman

Chapter Thirteen. Compositional Analysis of Prehispanic Pottery from the Dry Eastern Lowlands of Bolivia 135
William D. Gilstr ap, Emlen Myers, and Hector Neff

Chapter Fourteen. Pottery from Funerary Mounds along the Arid Atacama Desert Coast, Chile: Chemistry,
Circulation, and Exchange between the Inlands and Coast during the Formative Period 147
Itací Correa Girrulat, Fr ancisco Gallardo, Mauricio Uribe
Rodríguez, Ester Echenique, José Fr ancisco Blanco, Samuel
Flewett, Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Fifteen. A Compositional Characterization of Ceramic Production and

Circulation during the Formative Period in Tarapacá, Northern Chile 161
Mauricio Uribe Rodríguez, Estefanía Vidal Montero, Michael D.
Glascock, Andrew Menzies, Marcia Muñoz, and Cody C. Roush

Chapter Sixteen. Testing the Social Aggregation Hypothesis for Llolleo Communities in Central Chile: Style,
Pastes, and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Ceramic Smoking Pipes and Drinking Pots 173
Fernanda Falabella, Silvia Alfaro, María Teresa Planella,
Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Seventeen. Recruited or Annexed Lineages: A Chemical

Analysis of Purén and Lumaco Pottery and Clays 191
Leslie G. Cecil, Tom D. Dillehay, and Michael D. Glascock
 Contents vii

Chapter Eighteen. Prestige Ceramics in Inca Qollasuyu: Production and Distribution

of Imperial and Regional Ceramics in the Southern Andes 195
Verónica I. Williams, Terence N. D’Altroy, Hector Neff,
Robert J. Speakman, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Nineteen. Social Interaction and Communities of Practice in Formative Period

Northwestern Argentina: A Multi-­Analytical Study of Ceramics 209
Marisa Lazzari, Lucas Pereyr a Domingorena, Wesley D. Stoner, María
Cristina Scattolin, María Alejandr a Korstanje, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter Twenty. From the Mountains to the Yungas: Provenience and Distribution of Ceramics
in Ambato Societies of the Andes of Argentina in the Fifth Century AD 215
Martin Giesso, Andrés G. Laguens, Silvana R. Bertolino,
Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael D. Glascock

Chapter ­Twenty-­One. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Archaeological

Pottery from Mendoza, Central Western Argentina 221
Nuria Sugr añes, María José Ots, Michael D. Glascock, and Gustavo Neme

Chapter ­Twenty-­Two. Ancient Exchange Networks in the Central Amazon 231

Eduardo G. Neves, Casimiro S. Munita, Roberto
Hazenfr atz, and Guilherme Z. Mongeló

Chapter ­Twenty-­Three. Ceramic Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Studies in South America 241
Hector Neff and Kevin J. Vaughn

References Cited 249

Contributors 289
Index 293
 Illustrations
Figu r es
Figure 1.1. Cluster analysis dendrogram showing the results
for Inca pottery measured by Betty Holtzman
at LBNL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 1.2. Biplot of PC#1 and PC#2 for Inca pottery from
Cuzco and the Pacific coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 1.3. Biplot of PC#1 and PC#3 for Inca pottery from
Cuzco and the Pacific coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 1.4. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#2 showing the
difference between Inca pottery from Cuzco
and the Pacific coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 1.5. Log-­log scatterplot of Cs and Eu concentrations
showing the difference between Inca pottery
from Cuzco and the Pacific coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 2.1. Location of the four valleys surveyed in the
Upper Caquetá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.2. Small stone sculpture found in the Valencia
Valley and ­corrugated-­style sherd collected
from the Upper Caquetá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2.3. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#2 showing seven
compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 2.4. Log-­log scatterplot plot of Cr and K in parts per
million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 2.5. Raw clay samples plotted against confidence
ellipses for core compositional groups shown
in Figure 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 3.1. Map of Ecuador showing western Pichincha
research region and Palmitopamba . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 3.2. A Tsáchila family near Santo Domingo de los
Tsáchilas around 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 3.3. Site of Palmitopamba occupies a high hill south
of the town of the same name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 3.4. Stone foundation of a ­never-­finished Inca building . 28
Figure 3.5. Yumbo pottery is mostly plainware for domestic
purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
ix
Figure 3.6. Two reconstructed Inca vessels from a grave at
the Yumbo cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 3.7. A number of sherds of Cosanga pottery
excavated and subjected to INAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 3.8. Map showing known distribution of Cosanga
pottery at sites in northern Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 3.9. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#3 showing four
compositional groups of pottery from sites in
northern Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 3.10. Scatterplot of Cr and La concentrations showing
the ellipses for the four compositional groups
and the Yumbo and Inca samples from the
grave at NL-­18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 3.11. Partially reconstructed unique vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 3.12. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#2 showing four
compositional groups and several unassigned
ceramic specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 3.13. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#3 showing the four
ceramic compositional groups and 40 raw
clay samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 4.1. Map of coastal Ecuador indicating
collection region for ceramic and raw
material samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 4.2. Seriation of Complex I and Complex II
Guangala ­finger-­painted ceramics and
utilitarian wares from El Azúcar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 4.3. Complex I unslipped, ­finger-­painted vessel sample
and El Azúcar Valley clay-­rich sediment . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 4.4. Complex I red-­slipped, ­finger-­painted vessel
sample and recovery of chert and tuff
fragments in river drainage float . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 4.5. Complex II unslipped, ­finger-­painted vessel,
forms, and surface burn patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 4.6. Complex II red-­slipped, ­finger-­painted vessel,
forms, and surface burn patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 4.7. Principal components biplot for data from
INAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
x Illustrations
Figure 5.1. Location of study sites on the north coast
of Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 6.1. An ­oblique-­angle photo of Kiln 38, Kiln
Cluster 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 6.2. Three views of Kiln 8 that show its overall shape
and construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 7.1. Map showing the area of the Lambayeque
complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 7.2. Great Plaza and the trenches hitherto
excavated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 7.3. Biplot of the first two PCs from PCA of the 225
specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 7.4. Dendrogram showing the results of hierarchical
cluster analysis of the 225 specimens . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 7.5. Biplot of the first two PCs from PCA of the
122 specimens belonging to Sicán BDP
Groups 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 7.6. Dendrogram showing the nested structure of
the assemblage of 122 specimens that belong
to Sicán BDP Groups 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 7.7. Biplots of the first two PCs from PCA of the
assemblage of 122 specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 8.1. Map of the Cajamarca Basin indicating the
location of Yanaorco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 8.2. Architectural plan of Yanaorco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 8.3. The ceramic samples formed five
analytical groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 8.4. Examples of Amoshulca Black Geometric,
Amoshulca Black Geometric, and Cajamarca
Semi-­Cursive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 8.5. Examples of Cajamarca Black and Orange
style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 8.6. Examples of Cajamarca Fine Black and a new
Cajamarca Gray ware style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Figure 8.7. Distribution of fine ware and utilitarian ware
vessels by analytical group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 8.8. General distribution of form types by analytical
group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 8.9. Distribution of time-­diagnostic sherds by
analytical group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 9.1. Location of Strong, Willey, and Corbett’s
excavations at the Temple of the Sun,
Pachacamac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 9.2. Photo taken during Strong’s excavations
showing technique used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 9.3. Schematic profiles showing occurrence
percentages of Inca, Inca-­Associated, Early
Pachacamac, and all ceramics as identified by
Strong et al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 9.4. Log-­log scatterplot of the neutron activation
results showing amounts of Cs and Sc . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 9.5. PCA of the LA-­ICP-­MS results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 9.6. Photos of ceramics belonging to each INAA
compositional group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 9.7. PCA of the LA-­ICP-­MS of black and white
pigments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 10.1. Archaeological sites that provided the ceramics
analyzed in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 10.2. Biplot of PC#1 and PC#2 showing
compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 10.3. Biplot of PC#1 and PC#3 showing
compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 10.4. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#2 showing
compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 10.5. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#3 showing
compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 10.6. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#3 showing
compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 10.7. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#2 showing the
Group 2 and Pachacamac groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 10.8. Machu Picchu ceramic paste groups . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 10.9. Ceramic paste Group 1 vessel forms . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 10.10. Ceramic paste Group 2 vessel forms . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 10.11. Patallacta ceramic paste groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 10.12. Sacsahuaman ceramic paste groups . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 10.13. Choquequirao ceramic paste groups . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 10.14. Espiritu Pampa ceramic paste groups . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 10.15. Ceramic paste groups from Pachacamac and
other sites in the Lurin Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 11.1. Map of the Nasca drainage with La Tiza and
other sites mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 11.2. Map of La Tiza with units sampled for
INAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 11.3. Biplot of first two PCs for the data set . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 11.4. Scatterplot of logged elemental concentrations
of Al and Sb values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 11.5. Examples of pottery from identified
compositional groups from La Tiza . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 12.1. Map of Wari sites mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 12.2. PCA for Moquegua and Wari heartland
samples with elemental loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Figure 12.3. Scatterplot of first two PCs for Moquegua and
Wari heartland chemical groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 12.4. Scatterplot of first two PCs showing 90%
confidence ellipses and unassigned sample. . . . . 128
Figure 12.5. Scatterplot of Sr and U showing the difference
between Moquegua and Wari samples . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 12.6. Scatterplot of Sc and Th illustrating Baúl
Reference group, Mejia A, and Mejia E . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 12.7. Scatterplot of La and Cr distinguishing Baúl
Reference group and Mejia A–E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 12.8. Scatterplot of Cs and Al demonstrating
separation of Baúl Reference group and
Mejia G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
 Illustrations
Figure 12.9. Scatterplot of Eu and Hf differentiating the
Wari-­1, Wari-­2, and Wari-­3 groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 12.10. Example photos of ceramic vessels from Cerro
Baúl sampled via INAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 13.1. Map of the Gas-­TransBoliviano pipeline ­right-­
of-­way and all sites mentioned in the text . . . . . . 136
Figure 13.2. PCA biplot of first two components illustrating
three distinct compositional groups . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 13.3. Scatterplot comparing logged elemental
concentrations of Th and Sc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 13.4. Scatterplot comparing logged elemental
concentrations of Fe and Sb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 14.1. Mound cemeteries from Loa River mouth,
­Tocopilla-­Hornitos coastal section, and
Mejillones Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 14.2. Loa Café Alisado examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 14.3. ­Quillagua-­Tarapacá examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Figure 14.4. San Pedro Negro Pulido and San Pedro Rojo
Pulido examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 14.5. General map showing where pottery and clay
samples were obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 14.6. PCA plot of overall sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Figure 14.7. Hierarchical cluster analysis of quantitative
elemental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Figure 14.8. PCA considering only ­Quillagua-­Tarapacá
pottery fragments and clay samples . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 14.9. PCA considering only Loa Café Alisado
fragments and clay samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Figure 15.1. Map of the region, with Formative sites
mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure 15.2. Loa Café Alisado (LCA) fragment showing a
detail of the “comma rim” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 15.3. Quillagua Tarapacá Café Amarillento (QTC)
vessel with lid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Figure 15.4. Pica Charcollo fragment with its characteristic
scraped surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Figure 15.5. Graph showing frequencies of ceramic types in
each petrographic group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Figure 15.6. Biplot of the first and second PCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Figure 15.7. Log-­log scatterplot of Th and Rb
concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure 15.8. Scatterplot of the first and second PCs for
the LCA specimens of the Early Formative
period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure 15.9. Scatterplot of first and second PCs for the
QTC / ​QRP types of the Late Formative . . . . . . . . 168
Figure 15.10. Results of the automated scanning electron
microscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 15.11. PCA for the samples of Tarapacá and
Atacama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 16.1. Map of central Chile showing the Llolleo sites
mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
xi
Figure 16.2. Mapuche nguillatun ceremony in Carahue,
early twentieth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Figure 16.3. The La Granja site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Figure 16.4. Llolleo inverted T–type smoking pipes . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 16.5. Llolleo drinking pots and wide-­mouth pots. . . . . . 179
Figure 16.6. Frequency distribution of smoking pipes and
pottery sherds paste groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Figure 16.7. Scatterplot of PC scores and loading vectors
for the first two PCs calculated from smoking
pipes and ceramic sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Figure 16.8. Log-­log scatterplot of Rb and Cs
concentrations in the La Granja data set . . . . . . . 186
Figure 16.9. Distribution of INAA chemical groups for
smoking pipes and pottery sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Figure 16.10. Scatterplot of PC scores for the first and
second PCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Figure 16.11. Projection of smoking pipe samples from the
La Granja database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Figure 17.1. Ceramic samples from Huitranlebu, Purén,
southern Chile, projected onto the first two
PCs with vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Figure 17.2. Plot of Cr and Th base-­10 logged
concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Figure 17.3. Ceramic samples and three clay samples
projected onto the first and third PCs . . . . . . . . . 193
Figure 18.1. The Inca Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Figure 18.2. The southern part of the Inca Empire . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Figure 18.3. Inca pottery from northwest Argentina . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 18.4. Santamariano and Belén Black-­on-­Red
pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Figure 18.5. Yocavil Polychrome and Famabalasto Black-­
on-­Red pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Figure 18.6. Yavi Chico Polychrome, Inca Paya, and
Polished Blackware ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Figure 18.7. Urcosuyo Polychrome and Pacajes
pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Figure 18.8. Plot of Sm and Eu base-­10 logged
concentrations for pottery from northern
Chile, the Titicaca Basin, northwest
Argentina, and two unknown production
areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Figure 18.9. B
­ ivariate plot of PC#1 and PC#2 based on PCA
of the northwest Argentina pottery group . . . . . 204
Figure 18.10. Discriminant analysis plot showing
separation of all northwest Argentina
pottery groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Figure 18.11. Plot of Cr and Tb base-­10 logged
concentrations showing separation of Groups
5 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Figure 18.12. Plot of Fe and Sb base-­10 logged
concentrations showing separation of Groups
5 and 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
xii Illustrations
Figure 18.13. Plot of Co and Mn base-­10 logged concentrations
showing separation of Groups 4 and 7 . . . . . . . . . 205
Figure 19.1. Map of study area showing principal areas and
sites mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Figure 19.2. Bulk INAA data for ordinary wares, decorated
wares, and Vaquerías, Condorhuasi, and
intermediate fabric wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Figure 20.1. Map of northwest Argentina showing the
location of the Ambato Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Figure 20.2. Distribution of Ambato sites in the Ambato
Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Figure 21.1. Map of Mendoza Province with archaeological
sites from Tunuyán, Diamante, and Atuel
River basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Figure 21.2. Compositional group distribution on PC#1 and
PC#2 for sherds from the Tunuyán River
basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Figure 21.3. Compositional group distribution on PC#1 and
PC#2 for sherds from the Diamante and Atuel
River basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Figure 21.4. Compositional group distribution on PC#1
and PC#2 for sherds from all groups from
both areas, north and south of Mendoza
Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Figure 21.5. Compositional group distribution on PC#1 and
PC#2 for sherds from both areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Figure 21.6. Chemical groups in the north and south of
Mendoza Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Figure 22.1. Map of the study area in the Amazon state,
Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Figure 22.2. Topographic map of the Lago Grande site . . . . . . . 235
Figure 22.3. Pottery sherds from Lago Grande and Osvaldo
archaeological sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Figure 22.4. PCA scores for the elemental concentrations of
pottery sherds from Lago Grande and
Osvaldo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Figure 22.5. Distribution of Paredão and Manacapuru
pottery sherds in the chemical groups defined
for Lago Grande and Osvaldo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Figure 23.1. Map of South America showing the locations
of archaeological sites corresponding to the
individual chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Ta bles
Table 1.1. Concentrations of Elements in Standards and
­Quality-­Control Samples Used for Analysis
of Pottery Samples at the Archaeometry
Laboratory at MURR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 1.2. Comparison of Results for Perlman / ​Asaro
Standard Pottery and the Interlaboratory
Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 1.3. Group Membership Probabilities for Site-­Based
Groups with Outliers Removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 1.4. Group Membership Probabilities after Moving
Samples to Their Best Compositional Group
with Outliers Removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2.1. Counts of Pottery and Raw Clay Samples by
Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 2.2. Chemical Group Assignments by Valley . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 4.1. Ceramic Class Petrographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . 45
Table 8.1. Cajamarca and General Andean Chronologies . . . . . . 75
Table 8.2. Ceramic Types and Analytical Group
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 10.1. Samples from Cuzco (Sacsahuaman) Collected
by Max Uhle and Selected by Betty Holtzman
for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 10.2. Samples from the Lurin Valley and Pachacamac
Selected by Betty Holtzman for Analysis . . . . . . . 100
Table 11.1. Chronology of the Nasca Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 11.2. Count and Percentage of Sherds Assigned to the
INAA Compositional Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Table 14.1. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates Considered in
this Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Table 14.2. C
­ hrono-­Cultural Assessment and General
Frequencies of Coastal Tumuli Pottery . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 14.3. Area, Sites, and Number of Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 14.4. Provenance of Clay Samples for INAA . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 15.1. Thermoluminescence (TL) Dates for the
Different Ceramic Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Table 15.2. Main Petrographic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Table 15.3. Number of Specimens Collected at Each Site and
Included in the INAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Table 15.4. Modal Mineralogy of Samples 24–32 . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Table 16.1. Thermoluminescence and Radiocarbon Dates
for the La Granja Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Table 16.2. Morphological Types of Smoking Pipes . . . . . . . . . . 180
Table 16.3. Distribution of Decorated Smoking Pipe
Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Table 16.4. Comparative Frequency of Smoking Pipe
Colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Table 16.5. Number and Density of Smoking Pipe
Fragments in Llolleo Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Table 16.6. Smoking Pipes Paste Groups at the La Granja
Site with and without Decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Table 16.7. Distribution of Paste Groups of Smoking
Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Table 16.8. Chemical Groups Determined by INAA and
Mahalanobis Distances for Pottery and
Smoking Pipe Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Table 16.9. Distribution of Chemical Groups at the La
Granja Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Table 16.10. Mahalanobis Distance Calculations for
Projection of Samples of Smoking Pipes . . . . . . . 189
Table 18.1. Ceramic Types by Site and Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
 Illustrations xiii

Table 18.2. Summary of Ceramic Types Assigned to
Compositional Groups based on Mahalanobis
Distance Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Table 20.1. Locations of Clay Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Table 20.2. Number of Sherds Assigned to the Ambato
Valley Reference Group and Other Sources . . . . 218
Table 21.1. Environmental and Archaeological Contexts of
Sherds Elected for INAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Table 21.2. Chemical Groups Identified by
Archaeological Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
 Preface and Acknowledgments
The inspiration for this volume came about while work-
ing on the database for ceramic samples analyzed by the
Archaeometry Laboratory at the University of Missouri
Research Reactor (MURR) over the past 30 years. The
entire ceramics database contains data for more than
100,000 samples of pottery and clays from around the
world that have been analyzed by instrumental neutron
activation analysis (INAA) at MURR. We discovered that
more than 6,000 samples have been analyzed for col-
leagues working on a variety of projects throughout South
America.
We recognized this as an opportunity to organize a
symposium entitled “Ceramics of the Indigenous Cul-
tures of South America” at the 2016 meeting of the Soci-
ety for American Archaeology in Orlando, Florida, where
the results from various projects were presented. The
comparisons and contrasts between projects conducted
in different parts of South America proved extremely
interesting. Several of the presentations described the
use of multiple methodological approaches; for example,
by integrating the reliable compositional groups deter-
mined by INAA with information obtained from com-
plementary techniques such as optical petrography, laser
­ablation-­inductively coupled ­plasma-­mass spectrometry
(LA-­ICP-­MS), X-­ray diffraction (XRD), and Mössbauer
spectroscopy to explain factors such as the geological
environments and technological choices of the potters. As
a consequence of the successful symposium, a majority
of the participants agreed to contribute chapters to this
volume. Furthermore, it was agreed that the data from all
projects be made available to the public.
xv
During preparation of this volume, we learned that
Isabelle Druc had recently published Ceramic Analysis in
the Andes (Druc, ed. 2015). Although there is some over-
lap, this book differs mainly by the greater number of
examples, countries, and archaeological questions being
investigated. For example, it has been our experience that
many archaeologists struggle with the interpretation of
ceramic compositional data because they are often large
multivariate data sets that can be difficult to manage. As
a result, one of the benefits we see in this volume is the
number and diversity of studies presented that also cover
a wide array of questions.
Chapter 1 provides a detailed outline of the analytical
procedures for INAA and discusses the most commonly
employed approaches to interpretation of compositional
data. Chapters 2 through 22 present the case studies from
seven different countries: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,
Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Chapter 23 reviews
some of the methodological and substantive issues raised
in several of the studies.
The editors wish to thank the authors for timely submis-
sion of their chapters. We also acknowledge Candis C.
Lindsey, who assisted by proofreading the individual
chapters. And, finally, we acknowledge the National Sci-
ence Foundation for a series of grants (numbers 9102016,
9503035, 9802366, 0102325, 0504015, 0802757, 1110793, and
1415403) to the Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR that
made this work possible.
 1
Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics
M i c h a e l D. G l a s c o c k
Introduction
Ceramics (i.e., pottery) were the first synthetic mate-
rials created by humans and are among the most com-
mon artifacts recovered from archaeological sites
around the world. The role of humans in the production,
distribution, and usage of pottery makes it an ideal mate-
rial for investigating questions regarding human behav-
ior and interactions between prehistoric cultures. Some
of the questions of interest to archaeologists are, Where
did potters obtain their raw materials? How was pottery
production organized? What does craft organization tell
us about the social, political, and economic conditions
under which they were made? What can the presence of
pottery made at one site but also found at another tell us
about trade and exchange?
Technological investigations of ancient pottery began
in the middle of the nineteenth century with studies of its
visual and microscopic properties. T. W. Richards (1895)
and his Harvard graduate students performed the first
quantitative analysis of pottery using the wet chemistry
gravimetric method. However, they concluded that the
method was too laborious and not practical for studying
large numbers of samples. Interest in scientific character-
ization of pottery grew during the 1930s and 1940s when
Anna Shepard (1956) laid the foundations for ceramic
petrography.
1
In the middle of the twentieth century, archaeologists
and chemists began making use of instrumental tech-
niques capable of measuring the elements present in and
on the surfaces of pottery while seeking information to
answer archaeological questions. Compositional analysis
produces chemical fingerprints by which artifacts with
similar compositions might be grouped together and dis-
similar artifacts might be assigned to different groups.
By examining the compositional data and microscopic
and other archaeological information (e.g., context, dec-
oration, use) together, archaeologists are able to infer
answers to their questions. Today, the application of com-
positional analysis to studies of ceramics and other arti-
facts has become almost routine.
Although many analytical methods have been employed
to study archaeological materials during the past century,
the vast majority of compositional analy­sis investigations
have used instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA)
for the purpose of performing bulk characterization of pot-
tery pastes (Speakman and Glascock 2007). The reasons for
choosing INAA are (1) the ease of sample preparation, (2)
the entire analytical sample is analyzed, (3) a large num-
ber of elements can be measured with excellent accuracy
and precision, (4) the possibility of automation facilitates
efficient handling of large numbers of samples, and (5) the
data from samples analyzed years apart and in different
INAA laboratories can be compared with an acceptable
2 Gl a sco ck
level of confidence. Although INAA has some disadvan-
tages because certain elements are not sensitive by INAA
(e.g., Mg, Si, and P), the samples become radioactive, and
availability is limited, it can be argued that these disad-
vantages are relatively minor compared to the impact that
INAA data has afforded to thousands of ceramic studies.
When INAA is combined with a complementary technique
such as petrographic analysis, an even more complete pic-
ture of the production, distribution, and consumption of
pottery is often possible.
The most significant alternative to INAA for bulk
analysis of pottery is inductively coupled p ­ lasma-­mass
spectrometry (ICP-­MS). ICP-­MS is capable of measur-
ing more elements than INAA, but ICP-­MS requires the
analytical sample be dissolved in strong acids under very
high temperature and pressure in a microwave oven.
In addition, the number of samples one can process in
a ­single batch by ICP-­MS is limited (~10–20), expen-
sive high-­purity acids are necessary, and more labor is
required such that the total analytical costs are compa­
rable. For these reasons, ICP-­MS studies of pottery are
less common than INAA.
Two other analytical methods that have gained
popularity in recent years are energy dispersive X-­ray fluo-
rescence (ED-­XRF), primarily through use of por­table ana-
lyzers, and laser a­ blation-­inductively coupled p
­ lasma-­mass
spectrometry (LA-­ICP-­MS). However, neither is a “true”
bulk analytical technique. The popularity of the portable
XRF spectrometer is due to the capability of performing
a rapid, nondestructive analysis at archaeological sites and
in museums. However, the identification of unambigu-
ous compositional groups by XRF (i.e., either laboratory
based or portable) is challenging because (1) the shallow
penetration depth of X-­rays means the entire sample is not
uniformly analyzed, (2) precision and accuracy for hetero-
geneous samples is limited, and (3) the number of discrim-
inating elements measured is restricted (Speakman et al.
2011). Although LA-­ICP-­MS can measure a greater num-
ber of elements than XRF, the analysis takes place only on
the surface (Wallis and Kemanov 2013). Instead of studying
the pottery fabric, both analytical techniques are more suc-
cessful when analyzing slips, paints, and glazes. Another
application for LA-­ICP-­MS is for the examination of tem-
per inclusions present in the pottery fabric (Stoner and
Glascock 2012).
Sa mple Pr epa r ation of
Pottery a nd Cl ays
The sample preparation procedures employed by the
Archaeometry Laboratory at the University of Missouri
Research Reactor (MURR) and most other INAA labo-
ratories are similar. Work begins by recording complete
descriptions of the archaeological samples, including
their field identification numbers, provenience, style,
paste color, and so forth. For pottery samples submit-
ted as sherds, two small fragments of approximately
1 cm2 in area (~0.5 g each) are removed from the orig-
inal sherd. One fragment is retained for archival pur-
poses, and the other is used to produce the analytical
sample. All exposed surfaces of the analytical sample are
scraped with a ­silicon-­carbide grinding tool to remove
pos­sible soil contamination and decorations such as
paint or glaze. The scraped specimen is then washed
in deionized water, dried, ground into powder with an
agate mortar and pestle, and stored in a glass container.
For whole pots and other precious samples in museums
that cannot be ground, powders are obtained by drill-
ing with a ­tungsten-­carbide drill bit. Unfired clays are
heated in a furnace at 700ºC for two hours, after which
a portion of the clay is ground into a powder and stored
in a glass container. The powdered samples are dried in
an oven at 105ºC for 24 hours before they are ready for
weighing.
At MURR, two subsamples are prepared from each
analytical sample for separate short and long irradiations.
For short irradiations, 150 mg of powder is weighed into
a clean, high-­density polyethylene vial. For long irradi-
ations, 200 mg of powder is weighed into a clean, high-­
purity quartz vial. Weights are recorded to the nearest
0.01 mg. Both vials are sealed prior to irradiation. If
less sample material is available, the sample weights are
reduced proportionally. When the total amount of pow-
der is less than 100 mg, the short irradiation sample is
transferred into a quartz vial after it has decayed to a safe
handling level.
Standard reference materials made from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology certified stan-
dard reference materials (SRMs) are similarly prepared.
The primary standard for ceramic analysis is coal fly ash
(i.e., SRM-­1633a or SRM-­1633b), with suitable concentra-
 Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics 3

Table 1.1. Concentrations of Elements in Standards and ­Quality-­C ontrol Samples Used
for Analysis of Pottery Samples at the Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR
STANDARDS QUALIT Y CONTROL

Element SRM-­1633a Coal Fly Ash SRM-­1633b Coal Fly Ash SRM-­688 Basalt Rock New Ohio Red Clay

SHORT HALF-­L IVES (T 1/2 < 24 HRS)

Na (%) 0.165 0.201 0.138
Al (%) 14.1 14.8 9.49
K (%) 1.89 2 3.45
Ca (%) — — 8.79 0.14
Ti (%) 0.80 0.79 0.62
V (ppm) 300 300 203
Mn (ppm) 190 143 263
Ba (ppm) 1,320 683 611
MEDIUM HALF-­L IVES (24 HRS < T 1/2 < 7 DAYS)
As (ppm) 145 132 14.8
La (ppm) 79.1 85.5 50.1
Lu (ppm) 1.075 1.05 0.59
Nd (ppm) 76 82 47
Sm (ppm) 16.8 18.6 9.25
Yb (ppm) 7.50 7.43 4.31
U (ppm) 10.3 8.8 3.3
LONG HALF-­L IVES (T 1/2 > 7 DAYS)
Sc (ppm) 38.6 40.2 18.3
Cr (ppm) 193 197 90
Fe (%) 9.38 7.78 5.05
Co (ppm) 44.1 48.6 22.6
Ni (ppm) 130 116 75
Zn (ppm) 220 206 94
Rb (ppm) 134 138 181
Sr (ppm) 835 1,036 60
Zr (ppm) 240 223 181
Sb (ppm) 6.15 4.85 1.11
Cs (ppm) 10.4 10.5 10.1
Ce (ppm) 168 184 112
Eu (ppm) 3.58 3.93 1.72
Tb (ppm) 2.53 2.73 1.24
Hf (ppm) 7.29 6.76 7.34
Ta (ppm) 1.93 1.84 1.48
Th (ppm) 24.0 24.4 14.9

tions for all elements present in ceramics except calcium.1
For calcium determinations, the basalt rock ­standard
­(SRM-­688) is used. To monitor quality control of data col-
lected at MURR, an in-­house reference material (i.e., New
Ohio Red Clay) is used. The concentrations of elements
in the standards and quality controls used at MURR are
listed in Table 1.1.
Sa mple Ir r a diation
a nd Measu r ement
Following sample preparation, two irradiations and
three measurements are conducted on each sample. As
described in Glascock (1992), the short irradiation is car-
ried out through the pneumatic tube irradiation system
where the samples are sequentially irradiated in pairs
for five seconds by a neutron flux of 8 × 1013 n cm−2 s−1.
4 Gl a sco ck
After a 25-­minute decay, the radioactive ­samples are
counted for 12 minutes by a pair of high-­purity germa-
nium detectors. Gamma rays for up to nine elements are
measured from the short irradiation samples, includ-
ing Al, Ba, Ca, Dy, K, Mn, Na, Ti, and V. The long irra-
diation samples are ­bundled together in batches of 50
along with standards and quality controls. The bundle of
­samples and standards is subjected to a 24-­hour irradi-
ation in a neutron flux of 6 × 1013 n cm−2 s−1. The long
irradiation samples are allowed to decay for seven days
before the vials are washed and placed on an automatic
sample changer to count for 30 minutes each to measure
seven elements, including As, La, Lu, Nd, Sm, U, and Yb.
After the counts are finished, the samples are allowed
to decay for at least two more weeks before they are
counted on the sample changer a final time for 2.5 hours
each. The third count yields up to 17 elements, including
Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Ni, Rb, Sb, Sc, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th,
Zn, and Zr. The concentration data from all three mea-
surements are tabulated in parts per million for each
element.
After all ­quality-­control checks verify that the data
are correct, a spreadsheet is created listing the samples
in the form of a matrix with the analytical IDs in the first
column and concentrations of elements in subsequent
columns. A final step is to combine the chemical data
with the descriptive data to produce a single database file
and merge it with all previous pottery and clay analyses
from MURR now numbering more than 7,500 for South
America and 100,000 for the entire world. Although
we attempt to measure about 33 elements in samples by
INAA, a few of the elements may be below the detec-
tion limits for pottery coming from certain regions
(e.g., As, Ni, Sb, and Sr), some elements have such low
precision that they may be less useful for the statistical
analysis (e.g., Nd, Tb, and U), and some elements may
exhibit contamination from the researcher having used
a ­tungsten-­carbide drill bit (e.g., Co and Ta). These ele-
ments should always be examined with caution.
Inter labor atory Compar ability
Since the first analyses of pottery and clays were con-
ducted in the middle of the twentieth century, dozens
of laboratories have used INAA to analyze pottery. The
INAA laboratories at Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL),
University of Manchester, University of Michigan, and
others produced compositional data for tens of thou-
sands of pottery samples from all over the world. Most
of these ­first-­generation INAA laboratories are no lon-
ger in operation. The investments in labor, neutrons, and
other resources to generate the compositional data were
­significant—not to mention the fact that portions of the
archaeological samples were consumed.
In 2005, recognizing that the data collected in
the f­irst-­generation laboratories might be lost, the
Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR began a project
to rescue the INAA data from the closed laboratories.
Fortunately, a few of the retired scientists from BNL,
LBNL, and University of Manchester (Asaro and Adan-­
Bayewitz 2007; Harbottle and Holmes 2007; Newton et
al. 2007) were still living. They cooperated with MURR
by providing access to their INAA data and other
records that, after hundreds of hours of effort, facili-
tated creating a digital version of their data. Although
some data could not be recovered, a majority of the
data were rescued (Boulanger 2012). Data from the
LBNL and University of Manchester laboratories can
be downloaded from the Archaeometry Laboratory at
MURR web pages: http:​ ​/​/ ​archaeometry​.missouri​.edu ​
/ datasets ​/ ​datasets​.html.
Before a successful comparison of the data from
different INAA laboratories is possible, information
about the reference standards used in each laboratory
is necessary. Largely for historical reasons, the various
laboratories employed different reference standards to
calibrate their data, which hinders direct comparison of
compositional data. However, if the standards have been
analyzed in each laboratory or if a sufficient number of
similar archaeological samples have been analyzed in
common, it is possible to establish interlaboratory con-
version factors. The value of maintaining interlaboratory
comparability is obvious, as it makes it possible to merge
the data from different laboratories into a single large
database.
The LBNL was the first INAA laboratory to ana-
lyze pottery from South America. In 1968, Betty Holtz-
man, a graduate student at the University of California,
Berkeley, obtained access to a unique collection of Inca
and Wari pottery stored in the Lowie Museum. Holtz-
man used a ­tungsten-­carbide drill to remove powders
from a total of 166 samples that she later analyzed by
 Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics 5

Table 1.2. Comparison of Results for Perlman/​A saro Standard

Pottery and the Interlaboratory Conversion Factors
ELEMENT PERLMAN AND MURR RESULTS LBNL-­T O-­M URR
ASARO (1969) (N = 19) CONVERSION FACTORS

Na (%) 0.258 0.250 0.969

Al (%) 15.3 15.5 1.013
K (%) 1.35 1.38 1.022
Ca (%) — 0.26 —
Sc (ppm) 20.6 19.9 0.820
Ti (%) 0.78 0.99 1.269
V (ppm) — 152 —
Cr (ppm) 102 113 1.108
Mn (ppm) — 42 —
Fe (%) 1.02 1.02 1
Co (ppm) 14.1 14.2 1.007
Ni (ppm) 278 245 0.881
Zn (ppm) 59 92 1.559
As (ppm) 30.8 30.2 0.981
Rb (ppm) 70 66 0.943
Sr (ppm) 145 114 0.786
Zr (ppm) — 175 —
Sb (ppm) 1.71 1.65 0.965
Cs (ppm) 8.31 8.41 1.012
Ba (ppm) 712 718 1.008
La (ppm) 44.9 45.6 1.016
Ce (ppm) 80.3 81.3 1.012
Nd (ppm) — 34.9 —
Sm (ppm) 5.78 6.48 1.121
Eu (ppm) 1.29 1.31 1.016
Tb (ppm) — 0.71 —
Dy (ppm) 4.79 4.65 0.971
Yb (ppm) 2.96 2.81 0.949
Lu (ppm) 0.43 0.51 1.186
Hf (ppm) 6.23 6.38 1.024
Ta (ppm) 1.55 1.72 1.110
Th (ppm) 14.0 13.6 0.971
U (ppm) 4.82 5.15 1.058

INAA using the Perlman / ​Asaro Standard Pottery for
calibration (Perlman and Asaro 1969). Unfortunately,
Holtzman’s untimely death ended the project, and the
data were never published. Fortunately, as mentioned
above, the LBNL pottery database was rescued. To make
the LBNL data compatible with projects conducted at
MURR, an intercalibration exercise was conducted in
which the Standard Pottery was analyzed relative to the
usual suite of standards employed at MURR. The result-
ing LBNL-­to-­MURR conversion factors are listed in
Table 1.2.
Statistica l Inter pr etation
of Compositiona l Data
The interpretation of pottery compositional data has
been discussed in detail by multiple authors (e.g., Baxter
1994; Bieber et al. 1976; Bishop and Neff 1989; Buxeda i
Garrigós and Kilikoglou 2003; Glascock 1992, 2016; Har-
bottle 1982a; Kilikoglou et al. 2007; Neff 2000) and will
only be summarized here. The primary goal is to iden-
tify distinct homogeneous groups within the multivari-
ate database. The production locations for pottery are
6 Gl a sco ck
inferred by ­comparing unknown samples to knowns (i.e.,
clay ­samples) or by indirect means such as the “criterion
of abundance” (Bishop et al. 1982) or by other arguments
based on geological or sedimentological characteristics
(e.g., Steponaitis et al. 1996). The MURRAP software pro-
gram used by the Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR
adopted many of the statistical procedures from the arti-
cles mentioned above. The program can be downloaded
for free from the website: http:​ ​/​/ ​archaeometry​.missouri​
.edu ​/ ​datasets ​/ GAUSS​_Download​.html.
Initial hypotheses about compositional groups are
derived either from non-­compositional data (e.g., archae-
ological context, decoration, or ceramic type) or from
applying various ­pattern-­recognition techniques to the
multivariate chemical data. Some of the more common
­pattern-­recognition techniques employed to examine
multivariate data are cluster analysis (CA), total varia-
tion matrix (TVM), principal component analysis (PCA),
and canonical discriminant analysis (CDA). Because
every project has different questions and every data set
is unique, there is no specific sequence by which ­pattern-
­recognition techniques should be used. In fact, the use
of multiple approaches is often recommended. When the
results of multiple approaches are found to be in agree-
ment, greater confidence in the final interpretation is the
result.
All operations within the MURRAP program automat-
ically transform the raw elemental data into logarithms of
concentrations. As demonstrated by Aitchison (1999), the
log transformation has the intent of creating a more sym-
metric distribution of the variables (elements) and more
approximately equal variances. An additional advantage
is that the transformation to logarithms compensates for
the differences in magnitude between the major elements
(i.e., %) and the trace elements (i.e., ppm) and makes data
handling more convenient.
Cluster Analysis
One of the procedures most often applied to multivari-
ate compositional data is cluster analysis (CA) because
it is rapid and easy to understand. The procedure groups
samples according to their similarity to one another. The
first step is to calculate the Euclidean distances between
pairs of samples. The CA procedure in MURRAP employs
a “bottoms up” approach toward building a hierarchy of
clusters. Using this approach, every sample is assumed
to be the lowest member of a cluster. As the distances
between pairs of samples are compared, those with the
smallest distances between are merged together as one
moves upward in the hierarchy. Samples separated by
large distances are placed in separate clusters.
In CA, a dissimilarity matrix is created in which the
distances between all pairs of specimens are calculated
using one of several possible distance measures (Sayre
1975). The most popular distance measure is the ­squared-
­mean Euclidean distance, where one calculates the dis-
tance between specimen j and specimen k according to
the equation
n
1 2
d 2jk = Cij Cik
n
i=1
The scaling factor, n, corresponds to the number of ele-
ments actually determined. It removes the possible prob-
lem of missing values, since the measure averages over
only those elements for which data are included. For an
assemblage containing m samples, there are m(m – 1)/2
pairs of samples, and a d 2 value is calculated for each pair.
The results are typically presented in the form of a
dendrogram indicating the relationships between sam-
ples. Although CA is an efficient tool for displaying the
visual relationships between samples, it has a number of
weaknesses: (1) the solution is not unique and strongly
depends on the choices made by the analyst; (2) groups
are always created, even if none exist; and (3) CA fails to
take into account the correlations between elements. The
latter can be a serious problem when dealing with highly
correlated data. Groups created from CA should always
be considered tentative until validated subsequently by
more robust methods of evaluation.
Total Variation Matrix
The total variation matrix (TVM) method is an approach
to compositional data originally described by Aitchison
(1982) and subsequently employed by Buxeda i Garrigós
and Kilikoglou (2003) to examine archaeometric data.
TVM is used to evaluate the degree of variability within a
2
multivariate data set from the measured variance, m .
Using Aitchison’s procedure, the variation matrix is
constructed from all possible variances of the logratios for
all n elemental concentrations. For example, the covari-
ances are defined by
 Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics
xi xj
ij, kl = cov log ,log
xk xk
All diagonal elements of the variation matrix are zero, and
the off-­diagonal elements of the variances are defined as
xi
ij = ii, jj = var log
xj
As a result, the covariances can be calculated from the
logratio variances using the equation
ij, kl = ( il + jk
and the total variation vt is given by
i=n
i=1
vt =
2n
A large value for vt indicates greater variation and
suggests the data set may be polygenic (i.e., multiple
subgroups), whereas a small value for vt indicates less
variability and suggests a possible monogenic data set.
Aitchison (1992) also demonstrated that the total varia-
tion is directly related to the Euclidean distances between
all samples in the data set.
In addition to total variation parameter, Buxeda i Gar-
rigós and Kilikoglou (2003) have demonstrated that the
variation matrix of the entire data set provides other use-
ful information. For example, sources of variability within
the data set can be revealed by examining the logratio
variances, τ.i, for each element as a divisor. The parameter
provides an estimate of each element’s contribution to the
total variation. The information from total variation and
logratio variances can be used to isolate samples affected
by processes such as alteration and contamination.
Principal Component Analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a variable
reduction technique often used to simplify the struc-
ture of compositional data. The goal is to explain as
much of the variance as possible using the minimum
number of variables. Although the PCA is not explic-
itly a ­group-­formation technique, it makes important
7
for i, j,k,l = 1,…,n. contributions toward ­finding groups and understanding
the differences between groups.
PCA performs an orthogonal transformation on the
data to convert potentially correlated variables into a
set of linearly uncorrelated variables called the principal
components (PCs). The goal is to transform the original
multivariate data into a new representative data set. How-
for i, j = 1,…,n.
ever, PCA is only useful if the data are correlated in some
way. For uncorrelated data, PCA offers no advantages. In
general, archaeological and geological samples exhibit
multiple correlated elements.
The PCA transformation applies eigenvector meth-
ij kl )/ 2 ods on the v­ ariance-­covariance matrix to determine the
directions and magnitudes of maximum variance in the
data set. Assuming the compositional data matrix has m
samples and n elements, the first step in PCA involves
centering the data on the mean values for each element.
j=n This insures that the transformed data will also be cen-
j=1 ij tered in the same location but will have no effect on the
spatial relationships between samples or the variances
between elements. The first principal component (PC) is
described by the linear combination of element concen-
trations according to the equation
PC1 = a11C1 + a12C2 +…+ a1nCn
where the coefficients a11, a12, . . . a1n of the eigenvector
represent the weighting factors for each element that rep-
resent the correlation coefficients between the elements
and the PCs. By definition, the weighting factors are con-
strained so that the sum of their squares must equal one:
2 2 2
a11 + a12 +…+ a1n =1
The second PC is calculated in the same way as the first
PC, with the condition that it must be orthogonal to the
first PC, and it must account for the maximum amount
of remaining variance. This process is continued until
the total number of PCs is equal to the number of ele-
ments, n.
The reference axes produced by PCA create a new
coordinate system that offers an improved perspective for
viewing the data set. The position of every specimen in
the elemental concentration space can be converted to its
principal score in the new PCA space.
Ideally, a greater proportion of the structure for
the compositional data set under examination will be
8 Gl a sco ck
explained by the lowest PCs. The results of PCA can be
studied by inspecting a table of weighting factors or by
viewing one or more scatterplots. The total number of
unique two-­dimensional scatterplots possible for inspec-
tion is n(n – 1)/2; however, the scatterplots for the h
­ igher-­
ordered PC scores gradually explain lesser amounts of the
variation. Although different criteria have been proposed
for determining how many PCs should be investigated
and how many should be ignored, one of the most com-
mon criteria is to include all PCs until the total percent-
age of variance explained reaches an acceptable level. For
a majority of archaeological work, the Archaeometry Lab-
oratory at MURR recommends explaining at least 90% of
the variance.
PCA can also be used to examine the basis for differ-
ences between groups. In R-­mode analysis, the weight on
each PC can be used to display the scores for samples in
the new PCA space. In Q-­mode analysis, the factor scores
for the variables (elements) can be inspected as vectors. As
described by Neff (1994), the multivariate analysis (MVA)
method that performs both simultaneously is known as
RQ-­mode PCA. When the RQ-­mode PCA technique is
used, it is possible to display both samples and element
vectors simultaneously on a single plot known as a biplot.
The directions and lengths of the element vectors can be
easily interpreted in terms of explaining which elements
are responsible for differentiating compositional groups
from one another and indicating the degree of correlation
between elements.
Examination of the element vectors can also be a use-
ful tool for identifying element pairs with the greatest
potential for use in scatterplots. Identifying scatterplots of
element pairs showing that the differences between com-
positional groups are real and not a consequence of the
PCA procedure is desirable.
Mahalanobis Distance
Individual compositional groups are characterized by
the location of their centroids and the unique correla-
tions between the elements. The existence of correlations
between the elements in geological and archaeological
materials necessitates the use of Mahalanobis distance
(MD) probability calculations to properly handle compo-
sitional data (Bishop and Neff 1989; Sayre 1975).
The MD is defined as the squared Euclidean distance
between a sample and a group centroid, divided by the
group variance in the direction of the sample (Sayre 1975).
It is equivalent to measuring the number of standard
deviations between a sample and the group mean along
each principal component axis. Mathematically, the MD
between specimen k and the centroid of group A can be
written as
n n
2
DkA = Cik Ai Iij C jk A j .
i=1 j=1
Ai and Aj are the mean concentrations of elements i and
j in the group, and Iij is the ij element of the inverse of the
­variance-­covariance matrix. The MD is both unitless and
­scale-­invariant and accounts for all correlations between
pairs of elements as derived from the off-­diagonal terms of
the v­ ariance-­covariance matrix, which the s­ imple Euclid-
ean distance does not. If all axes were rescaled such that
they have unit variance, the MD would be equal to the
Euclidean distance. Calculation of the probability that a
particular sample belongs to a group is based not only on
its proximity to the group centroid in Euclidean terms but
also on the rate at which the density of samples decreases
away from the centroid in the direction of the sample of
interest.
The significance of differences between two groups of
specimens can be tested by Hotelling’s T 2 statistics (the
multivariate equivalent of the Student’s t) calculated from
D2 according to the equation
D2
T2 = ,
1 1
+
m1 m2
where m1 and m2 are the numbers of samples in the two
groups. Hotelling’s T 2 statistic is equivalent to the MD
for individual data points. Therefore, the probabilities of
membership are easily calculated after transforming the
T 2 statistic into the related F-­value by
F=
[m1 + m2 − v −1] T 2 ,
[m1 + m2 − 2]n
where n is the number of elements.
MD calculations can also be used to replace missing
values (Sayre 1975). When the number of samples with
missing values is modest, it is possible to calculate a
replacement value for each sample relative to its ­presumed
 Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics
compositional group based on minimizing the effect on
the MD with and without the replacement value.
Group Validation
The initial groups created from the examination of scat-
terplots or cluster analysis should be validated by using
the MD to calculate membership probabilities for indi-
vidual samples. Calculation of the MD from a sample to
a group requires that the number of samples in the group
exceeds the number of variables (elements, or PCs) by at
least one. To avoid bias, individual samples should not
be compared to a compositional group in which they are
already a member. The solution to this problem is to use
a jackknifing procedure by which membership probabil-
ity for each sample is calculated by temporarily excluding
the sample from the group to which it is being compared.
For most accurate probability calculations, theoreti-
cal studies have shown that the s­ ample-­to-­element ratio,
m ​/ ​n, should range from three to five, and the larger the
better according to Foley (1972). Unfortunately, the m ​/ ​n
problem affects most compositional analysis projects in
archaeology because most archaeological sites lack the
number of artifacts, or more likely, because archaeolo-
gists lack the financial resources necessary to analyze the
number of artifacts needed to achieve the recommended
­sample-­to-­element ratio. The most common method
for circumventing the small s­ ample-­to-­element ratio is
to base MD measures on a reduced number of princi-
pal components rather than using the original element
­concentrations.
Classification and Discriminant Analysis
Classification and discriminant analysis are techniques
used to assign samples to sample groups and to validate
those groups. As new archaeological samples are ana-
lyzed, the same procedures used to validate group mem-
bership are applicable to classifying (or assigning) the
new samples to the existing compositional groups. After
membership to an existing group is confirmed, it may
be necessary to reevaluate the entire data set. If the new
­samples do not belong to existing groups, they may be
outliers or representatives of yet to be identified groups.
Canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) is a proce-
dure for dimension reduction similar to PCA. CDA con-
trasts with PCA by extracting a new set of variables that
9
­ aximize the differences between two or more groups
m
instead of maximizing the total variance. CDA relies
on the assumption that the pooled v­ ariance-­covariance
matrix is an accurate representation of the total variance
and covariance (Davis 1986). By definition, CDA also
requires all of the samples to belong to one of the known
groups. CDA cannot be used to find new groups.
The CDA procedure constructs a series of canonical
discriminant functions (one fewer than the number of
groups) that for each group maximizes the likelihood for
specimens to belong to their assigned group and mini-
mizes the likelihood of belonging to all other groups. The
main requirements for CDA are (1) two or more groups,
(2) at least two samples per group, and (3) the number
of variables must be at least two fewer than the number
of samples. The individual discriminant functions are
linear combinations of the original data that successively
describe decreasing amounts of the separation between
the groups. Two-­dimensional scatterplots of the discrim-
inant functions are used to illustrate the success in sepa-
rating groups by CDA.
Inca Pottery in the LBN L
Data base Used for Illustr ation
To demonstrate the statistical procedures in the MURRAP
program, the data for 43 samples of Inca pottery analyzed
by Holtzman at LBNL are used. The Inca-­style samples
are from two different regions. Thirteen s­ amples came
from the site of Cuzco-­Sacsahuaman (CUZ), and the
remaining 30 samples came from the Lurin Valley along
the Pacific coast. Of the latter, 14 samples came from the
site of Pachacamac (PAC), and 16 came from other sites
located throughout the Lurin Valley (LUR). To make data
compatible with data generated at MURR, the conversion
factors in Table 1.2 were applied to the LBNL data. A total
of 26 elements were measured in common between the
two laboratories.
The MURRAP program performed a log base-­10
transformation on the Inca samples prior to a hierarchi-
cal c­ luster analysis. The results of the cluster analysis are
shown in the dendrogram in Figure 1.1, where it appears
that there are three clusters of samples. The Upper clus-
ter contains all of the pottery from Cuzco along with
one sample from Pachacamac and four from the Lurin
Valley. The Lower cluster contains a mixture of samples
Figure 1.1. Cluster analysis dendrogram showing
the results for Inca pottery from Cuzco (CUZ),
Pachacamac (PAC), and Lurin Valley (LUR)
measured by Betty Holtzman at LBNL. Three
tentative clusters are apparent. Upper cluster has
all Cuzco samples. Lower cluster has both Pach-
acamac and Lurin Valley, but none from Cuzco.
The Outlier cluster samples are dissimilar from
samples in the Upper and Lower clusters.

Figure 1.2. Biplot of PC#1 and PC#2 for Inca

pottery from Cuzco and the Pacific coast. Vector
lengths represent contributions of elements to
the PCs. Groups are surrounded by 90% confi-
dence ellipses. Outlier samples are individually
labeled.

Figure 1.3. Biplot of PC#1 and PC#3 for Inca

pottery from Cuzco and the Pacific coast. Vector
lengths represent contributions of elements to
the PCs. Groups are surrounded by 90% confi-
dence ellipses. Outlier samples are individually
labeled.
 Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics 11

from Pachacamac and other sites in the Lurin Valley but Table 1.3. Group Membership Probabilities
no samples from Cuzco. Two possible Outlier samples for Site-­Based Groups with Outliers Removed
(i.e., PAC-­04 and LUR-­07) are located at the bottom of MEMBERSHIP PROBABILITIES(%) FOR SAMPLES IN
the dendrogram. For convenience, the Upper, Lower, and GROUP: COAST
Outlier clusters are tentatively labeled Cuzco, Coast, and ANID Coast Cuzco Best Group
Outlier.
The Inca pottery data were then subjected to an RQ-­ LUR-­01 17.755 8.495 Coast
LUR-­02 52.288 0.091 Coast
mode PCA based on the v­ ariance-­covariance matrix
LUR-­03 50.015 0.089 Coast
for all 26 elements. The PCA transformation facilitated LUR-­04 89.091 0.069 Coast
creation of the biplot for PC#1 versus PC#2 shown in LUR-­05 90.186 0.086 Coast
Figure 1.2, where 60.6% of the variance is explained. A LUR-­06 79.453 0.067 Coast
second biplot for PC#1 versus PC#3 shown in Figure 1.3 LUR-­08 10.803 70.152 Cuzco
explains 56.7% of the variance. An examination of both LUR-­09 78.858 5.480 Coast
biplots finds that the elements As, Cs, and Sb are heav- LUR-­10 0.131 0.249 Cuzco
ily weighted on PC#1, Na and Ni are heavily weighted on LUR-­11 37.548 21.654 Coast
LUR-­12 83.627 0.157 Coast
PC#2, and Ca and Ni are heavily weighted on PC#3. Fig-
LUR-­13 85.349 0.028 Coast
ures 1.2 and 1.3 also confirm that the Outlier samples are LUR-­14 98.121 0.058 Coast
significantly different from the Cuzco and Coast groups. LUR-­15 15.987 0.601 Coast
Mahalanobis distance–based probabilities for the LUR-­16 93.057 0.131 Coast
original Cuzco and Coast sample groups were calculated PAC-­01 73.672 0.061 Coast
using the jackknifing technique described earlier. Due to PAC-­02 5.690 0.064 Coast
the small number of samples in both groups, the calcula- PAC-­03 54.718 0.062 Coast
tions were based on the first six PCs that explain slightly PAC-­05 5.960 61.129 Cuzco
PAC-­06 62.504 0.076 Coast
more than 90% of the variance. According to the prob-
PAC-­07 85.027 0.067 Coast
abilities shown in Table 1.3, samples LUR-­08 and PAC-­ PAC-­08 21.068 0.161 Coast
05 initially located in the Coast group have much greater PAC-­09 80.144 0.029 Coast
probabilities of membership in the Cuzco group. After PAC-­10 35.255 0.035 Coast
moving both samples to the Cuzco group, the Mahala- PAC-­11 89.104 0.117 Coast
nobis distance–based probabilities were recalculated, PAC-­12 76.393 0.045 Coast
and the new results are shown in Table 1.4. The improved PAC-­13 0.608 0.346 Coast
results are more robust with only sample LUR-­10 show- PAC-­14 43.286 0.386 Coast

ing low probabilities of membership in both groups. The MEMBERSHIP PROBABILITIES(%) FOR SAMPLES IN
low probability was judged too low to justify moving the GROUP: CUZCO
­sample to the other group. ANID Coast Cuzco Best Group
Using the new sample grouping, a scatterplot of PC#1
CUZ-­01 11.219 79.227 Cuzco
versus PC#2 was generated as shown in Figure 1.4. The CUZ-­02 15.938 90.831 Cuzco
Cuzco and Coast groups are well separated. Finally, to CUZ-­03 0.049 0.652 Cuzco
show that the compositional groups are not a conse- CUZ-­04 13.156 3.800 Coast
quence of MVA, a log-­log scatterplot of elements Cs and CUZ-­05 0.265 15.942 Cuzco
Eu was generated as shown in Figure 1.5 showing no over- CUZ-­06 0.603 44.043 Cuzco
lap between the 90% confidence ellipses for both compo- CUZ-­07 10.664 79.036 Cuzco
CUZ-­08 5.496 51.615 Cuzco
sitional groups.
CUZ-­09 3.255 35.218 Cuzco
Based on these results, it appears likely that pottery
CUZ-­10 6.722 90.058 Cuzco
samples LUR-­08 and PAC-­05 were produced near Cuzco CUZ-­11 0.622 54.941 Cuzco
and later transported to the Lurin Valley region. Since CUZ-­12 40.451 46.664 Cuzco
Pachacamac was a well-­recognized religious center for the CUZ-­13 1.878 81.710 Cuzco
Inca, it is possible that the two pots were brought there for Note: Results are based on the first six PCs. Probabilities calculated after
religious pilgrimage. removing each sample from group.
12 Gl a sco ck

Table 1.4. Group Membership Probabilities Conclusions

after Moving Samples to Their Best
Compositional Group with Outliers Compositional analysis of ceramics has a proven record
Removed of success for investigations into the role of humans in
MEMBERSHIP PROBABILITIES(%) FOR SAMPLES IN topics such as (1) the organization and standardiza-
GROUP: COAST tion of pottery production, (2) changes in access to
ANID Coast Cuzco Best Group resources, (3) mobility patterns, (4) long-­distance trade
and exchange, and (5) the nature and scale of interaction.
LUR-­01 13.852 5.008 Coast
LUR-­02 46.338 0.034 Coast
Although a number of analytical techniques have been
LUR-­03 33.731 0.032 Coast employed to characterize pottery, the analytical method
LUR-­04 86.897 0.030 Coast with the longest and most successful history for bulk
LUR-­05 84.439 0.040 Coast analysis of pottery is INAA. The advantages of INAA for
LUR-­06 98.777 0.073 Coast bulk analysis of pottery are (1) the high precision and
LUR-­09 64.467 4.216 Coast accuracy for a large number of elements with concentra-
LUR-­10 0.040 0.221 Cuzco (not moved) tions ranging from trace to major, (2) the ease of sample
LUR-­11 19.503 17.548 Coast
preparation, (3) the capability of being automated such
LUR-­12 65.415 0.074 Coast
LUR-­13 82.312 0.009 Coast
that large numbers of samples can be analyzed efficiently,
LUR-­14 98.421 0.023 Coast and (4) the ability to successfully merge compositional
LUR-­15 20.696 0.352 Coast data collected years apart and in different laboratories
LUR-­16 95.120 0.072 Coast into a single database. This chapter describes the INAA
PAC-­01 76.950 0.027 Coast procedures at MURR employed by the authors of chap-
PAC-­02 0.084 0.021 Coast ters 2–21.
PAC-­03 78.658 0.016 Coast Because large quantities of data are created by com-
PAC-­06 53.989 0.035 Coast
positional analysis, multivariate analytical methods are
PAC-­07 83.395 0.031 Coast
PAC-­08 21.943 0.091 Coast
necessary to interpret the data and to make inferences
PAC-­09 88.678 0.016 Coast regarding human behavior and interactions between
PAC-­10 35.399 0.014 Coast cultures. Statistical methods such as cluster analysis,
PAC-­11 72.481 0.066 Coast principal component analysis, total variation matrices,
PAC-­12 78.386 0.018 Coast Mahalanobis distance–based probabilities, and dis-
PAC-­13 1.401 0.125 Coast criminant analysis from the statistical sciences are used
PAC-­14 40.341 0.257 Coast to facilitate the identification of compositional groups,
MEMBERSHIP PROBABILITIES(%) FOR SAMPLES IN to compare new samples to previously established
GROUP: CUZCO groups, and to validate the results. Two-­dimensional and
ANID Coast Cuzco Best Group ­three-­dimensional scatterplots and biplots are valuable
tools for displaying the results. The results should take
CUZ-­01 0.039 73.995 Cuzco
CUZ-­02 0.629 84.827 Cuzco
into account the correlations between elements, possible
CUZ-­03 0.009 0.111 Cuzco alterations during production, and changes during use
CUZ-­04 1.608 15.787 Cuzco and postdepositional processes.
CUZ-­05 0.086 17.886 Cuzco In this chapter, the MVA procedures used at MURR
CUZ-­06 0.902 29.851 Cuzco have been explained and demonstrated using a modest
CUZ-­07 0.217 69.289 Cuzco data set of Inca pottery from the sites of Cuzco, Pacha-
CUZ-­08 0.364 54.688 Cuzco
camac, and the Lurin Valley. Many of the other chapters
CUZ-­09 0.022 40.190 Cuzco
in this volume utilize one or more variations of these
CUZ-­10 0.143 85.235 Cuzco
CUZ-­11 0.416 45.875 Cuzco
­procedures.
CUZ-­12 6.155 53.868 Cuzco
CUZ-­13 1.838 73.258 Cuzco
LUR-­08 0.527 74.400 Cuzco (moved from Coast)
PAC-­05 0.397 62.418 Cuzco (moved from Coast)
Note: Results are based on the first six PCs. Probabilities calculated after
removing each sample from group.
 Compositional Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics 13

Figure 1.4. Principal components scatterplot of

PC#1 and PC#2 showing the difference between
Inca pottery from Cuzco and the Pacific coast.
Groups are surrounded by 90% confidence
ellipses. Outliers are not shown.

Figure 1.5. Log-­log scatterplot of Cs and Eu

concentrations showing the difference between
Inca pottery from Cuzco and the Pacific coast.
Groups are surrounded by 90% confidence
ellipses. Outliers are not shown.

Ack now ledgments Note

I would like to acknowledge the members of the archae- 1. The Archaeometry Lab discontinued use of the coal fly ash
ometry group at MURR who over the past 25 years have standard (SRM-­1633a) in December 2009, when the last bottle
assisted in the compositional analysis of more than was consumed. Since January 2010, all INAA analyses have used
7,500 samples of pottery for colleagues working in South the newer standard (SRM-­1633b).
America. This work was supported by the University of
­Missouri–Columbia and by a series of laboratory support
grants from the National Science Foundation (numbers
9102016, 9503035, 9802366, 0102325, 0504015, 0802757,
1110793, and 1415403) to the Archaeometry Laboratory
at MURR.
 2
Pottery Production and Consumption
in the ­Andean-­Amazonian Frontier of
Southwestern Colombia (2500–500 BP)
H e r n a n d o J . G i r a l d o , R o b e r t J . S p e a k m a n , M i c h a e l D.
Gl ascock, a n d A leja n dr a M. Gu diño
Introduction
The relations between Andean and Amazonian societ-
ies at the moment of the Spanish conquest in southwest-
ern Colombia (sixteenth century AD) are described as
dynamic, meaning that there was a constant circulation of
goods, knowledge, and people between the two regions,
with the foothill inhabitants working as intermediates
(Renard et al. 1988:34). The role of the inhabitants of the
foothills was not only economic, as specialized traders,
but also to provide active mediation in the construction
of the ­Andean-­Amazonian relations, merging cultural
traditions and ethnic identities (Ramírez de Jara 1996).
This role of foothill inhabitants obviously resulted from
their geographic location. They were settled in or along
natural routes connecting the Amazonian lowlands with
the Andean highlands. For example, the settlements in
the Sibundoy Valley were located on a strategic route con-
necting the Mocoa groups along the limits of the rain for-
est to the Pasto communities in the mountains (Ramírez
de Jara 1996).
The interactions between the Andean and Amazo-
nian communities in southwestern Colombia imply
the exchange of certain types of goods and ideas, which
can be summarized by three types (Langebaek 1998):
(1) The exchange of raw materials and staples, especially
coca leaves, cotton, pepper, honey, and manioc from the
15
l­owlands to the highlands. The type of raw materials or
staples moving in the opposite direction is unknown.
(2) The exchange of finished products, probably textiles
from the highlands to the lowlands, and ceramic objects
in the opposite direction. (3) The transference of esoteric
knowledge from the lowlands to the highlands. Addition-
ally, the movement of warrior communities’ populations
from the lowlands to the mountainous region through
invasions by has commonly been mentioned (Duque 1966).
The migration of Andean communities to the lowlands is
also hypothesized. The origin of these ­Andean-­Amazonian
interactions in southwestern Colombia is unknown.
Some scholars argue that there is archaeological evidence
of these interactions observed in stylistic similarities in
the material culture of the two regions during the Post-
classic period (ca. AD 900–1550) (Uribe 1981:270–271),
or even before (Duque 1966). However, the history of
occupation of some groups in the foothills is not very old.
The settlers of the foothills along the upper Caquetá River
and the Sibundoy Valley were Quechua speakers. Mean-
while, their closest neighbors in the lowlands and high-
lands were Kamsá / ​Quillacinga speakers (Ramírez de Jara
1996:60–61). The settlement of the Quechua speakers, or
Ingas, in the Amazonian foothills seems to be related to
the progression of military expansion of the Inca Empire
at the end of the fifteenth century AD (Ministerio de Cul-
tura de Colombia 2010:36). This implies that the dynamic
16 Gi r a l d o et a l .
relations described in the ethnohistoric accounts between
Andean and Amazonian communities in southwestern
Colombia were more recent than previously thought.
The recent development of ­highland-­lowland rela-
tions produced by the colonization of the territory in the
Amazonian foothills by Inga communities does not imply
that there were no previous interactions between the two
regions. On the contrary, some hypotheses of the devel-
opment of social inequalities in the Andean area, specifi-
cally in the San Agustín region, after the first century AD
rest on the existence of a dynamic exchange of goods,
ideas, and people with Amazonian societies.
San Agustín Chiefdoms and Amazonia
The epitome of ­Andean-­Amazonian interactions is seen
in the development of the San Agustín chiefdoms in the
highlands. These chiefdom societies were characterized by
the construction of monumental stone sculptures found in
elite class funerary mounds from 200 BC–AD 900 (Dren-
nan 2000; Duque 1966; González 2007). Archaeological
research in the area has found no evidence of control of
economic resources by the elite (Drennan and Quattrin
1995) or coercive leadership (Drennan 2000). Due to the
absence of archaeological evidence of economic or mili-
tary power as the base of political leadership, it has been
suggested that the San Agustín elite based their political
power on the control of shamanic or religious knowledge.
The link between San Agustín societies and the low-
lands developed in different ways. Some scholars relate
the iconography depicted in the stone sculptures with
typical fauna of the Amazonian lowlands (Drennan 1995;
Duque 1966; Gnecco 1996; Llanos and Ordoñez 1998),
suggesting that the esoteric knowledge manipulated by
religious leaders came from that region. Other scholars
argue that the change in mortuary rituals in San Agustín
was the result of invasions by lowland warrior commu-
nities and the migration of San Agustín communities
to Amazonia after about the ninth century AD (Duque
1966). This theory is usually supported by the stylistic
similarities in the ceramics of the two regions, specifi-
cally the presence of ceramics with corrugated exterior
surfaces in San Agustín post-­AD 900 (Uribe 1981). Pot-
tery with this type of decoration is very common in the
Amazonian region of northern South America (Guffroy
2006). However, the “invasion / ​migration” hypothesis as
an explanation of the change in mortuary ritual has been
rejected due to the continuity of the settlements (Drennan
2000). Nonetheless, scholars suggesting that the changes
in mortuary practices were a local phenomenon do not
reject some kind of interaction between the two regions
due to the presence of that particular kind of ceramic.
Even though these interpretations show contradictions,
they imply an active circulation of goods, knowledge, and
people between the Andean and Amazonian regions from
the second century BC until the Spanish conquest in the
sixteenth century AD. The links mentioned above have
been suggested on the basis of ethnohistoric data or from
“intuitive” inferences of the archaeological record, but
little empirical evidence has been presented. Therefore, the
evaluation of the suggested interaction between Andean
(San Agustín) and Amazonian societies by observing pat-
terns of pottery production and consumption in the com-
munities located between (the Upper Caquetá) by using
instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) is dis-
cussed in this chapter.
The Upper Caquetá Region
The scenario or route through which the implicit inter-
actions between San Agustín societies and those located
in the Amazonian rain forest occurred was possible
because of the Upper Caquetá (Figure 2.1). The Upper
Caquetá is the name for the southeastern slope of the
Colombian Massif (Macizo Colombiano), a complex
Andean orographic system where some of the most
important Colombian rivers (Magdalena, Cauca, Patía,
and Caquetá) originate. This region presents outstanding
intraregional differences in altitude, climate, vegetation,
and orogeny. The northern part, 50 km long from north
to south, from the Páramo de las Papas (3,000 m asl) to
the Santa Clara Valley (1,000 m asl) has been exposed to
powerful tectonic activity and affected by volcanic activ-
ity. The temperature and vegetation vary according to the
altitude, from 12°C in the Páramo to 16°C in the southern
limit. The southern region of the Upper Caquetá, 20 km
in length from the Descanse Valley (850 m asl) to the
Yunguillo Valley (600 m asl), is characterized by alluvial
deposits forming broad and tall terraces of accumulation
(Gnecco et al. 2001). Soils are less fertile than in the north,
and temperature varies from 16°C to 24°C. Today, the
Upper Caquetá is inhabited by different indigenous com-
munities (Papallacta and Ingas) and peasant colonizers.
Due to its geographic and historic relevance as
 Pottery Production and Consumption in the ­Andean-­Amazonian Frontier
­ ediator between two macroregions, the upper Caquetá
m Agustín (Figure 2.2). The presence of stone sculptures in
River valley was the focus of the multidisciplinary Human
Use of Landscape in the Upper Caquetá Project directed
by Cristobal Gnecco, Gonzalo Buenahora, and Reinaldo
García at the turn of the century. The project focused
on changes in land use, settlement patterns, demogra-
phy, social structure, and cosmovision of the communi-
ties s­ ettled in the different valleys crossed by the upper
Caquetá River, from its first human occupation until the
present (Gnecco et al. 2001).
The archaeological part of the project’s main objec-
tive was to establish the differences in the settlement
patterns between valleys according to their soil produc-
tivity and their change through time. To accomplish that
objective, the project involved the survey of approxi-
mately 100 km2 focused on, but not restricted to, four
valleys: ­Valencia—30 km2 (2,950 m asl), Santa Rosa—
15 km2 (1,700 m asl), Descanse—15 km2 (800 m asl), and
­Yunguillo-­San Carlos—7 km2 (650 m asl) (Figure 2.1).
The systematic survey showed that the region was
occupied from the first century AD until the sixteenth
century. According to demographic estimates, the popu-
lation density was very low in the entire region (Giraldo
2007). The majority of the population settled in dispersed
houses. Nevertheless, in the Valencia and Santa Rosa Val-
leys, some hamlets were identified.
The survey identified some stone sculptures and
mounds (not dated) in the Valencia and Santa Rosa Val-
leys, but rougher and smaller than those observed in San
500 KM
N VALENCIA
PANAMA
ECUADOR
Figure 2.1. Location of the four valleys sur-
veyed in the Upper Caquetá. Map by Her-
nando Giraldo.
17
a site in southwestern Colombia is usually inferred as evi-
dence of some kind of relationship between that site and
San Agustín, independent of style, distance, or date (e.g.,
Cadavid and Ordoñez 1992; Ramírez de Jara 1996:62).
Typological analysis of the potsherds indicated that the
ceramic assemblages were very homogeneous through-
out the region (Gnecco et al. 2001), a perspective not
shared by other scholars. Llanos and Alarcón (2000), for
instance, indicate the presence of at least three ceramic
assemblages belonging to the same number of ethnic
groups in the Upper Caquetá: one restricted to the Valen-
cia Valley, another to the region between the Santa Rosa
and Yunguillo Valleys, and another one in Mocoa, outside
the study area of this chapter. Therefore, the Yunguillo
Valley was the frontier between the San ­Agustín-­related
communities and those from the rain forest (Llanos and
Alarcón 2000:37). The differences between the Ama-
zonian and Andean communities were easily identifi-
able in the ceramic assemblages, since the former had
­corrugated-­style pottery (Figure 2.2).
Llanos and Alarcón (2000) also noticed some similar-
ity in ceramic decorative styles between the Santa Rosa
and San Agustín ceramic assemblages. This resemblance
led them to propose a strong relationship between these
two areas and the probable routes of connection. Ramírez
de Jara (1996:128) and Llanos and Alarcón (2000) men-
tion two different routes from which San Agustín inhabi-
tants could have mobilized toward Amazonia through the
Quinchana
VENEZUELA
Ca
qu
etá
Ri
COLOMBIA
s
ve
ita
r
es
M
SANTA
To
ROSA
SAN AGUSTIN
AMAZONAS
DESCANSE
Caquetá Rive
r
YUNGUILLO
N
PERÚ
20 KM
18 Gi r a l d o et a l .
upper Caquetá River: the first one crossing the Páramo,
next to the Valencia Valley, and the second one through
the La Candela Road, connecting San Agustín with the
Santa Rosa Valley (Figure 2.1).
As mentioned, the presence of sherds with corru-
gated surfaces in the San Agustín ceramic assemblages is
often used to suggest a continuous interaction between
the highlands and lowlands from AD 900 on, with the
Upper Caquetá being a communication route. Interest-
ingly, the systematic survey carried out by Gnecco et al.
(2001) in the Upper Caquetá provided very low propor-
tions of this kind of pottery. In the Yunguillo Valley, the
“frontier zone,” the proportion of corrugated potsherds
was 0.3% (Giraldo 2007). This low percentage should call
into question the inferred robust interaction between the
highlands and lowlands, especially if the exchange of such
types of pots is the strongest evidence for those relation-
ships. Besides, the decorative styles shared by the pottery
from Santa Rosa and San Agustín regions are extremely
widespread throughout southwestern Colombia, and the
similarities observed in them are based on a very subjec-
tive method. Finally, it is not possible to establish if the
pots were imported or only local imitations, independent
of how similar these pottery styles look.
Taking into account these observations, the Human
Use of Landscape in the Upper Caquetá Project aimed
to document the patterns of production and distribution
of the ceramics in the Upper Caquetá by characterizing
the chemical composition of individual ceramic speci-
mens using INAA (Gnecco et al. 2001). By using INAA,
it is possible to determine the loci of acquisition of raw
materials and to define areas of ceramic production and
exchange (Ashley et al. 2015; Bishop et al. 1982). Although
the compositional analysis of ceramics was restricted
Figure 2.2. Small stone sculpture found in
the Valencia Valley (left). A ­corrugated-­style
sherd collected from the Upper Caquetá
(right). Photo by Hernando Giraldo.
to samples from the four valleys mentioned above, the
results could provide some indirect information about
the relationship between Andean and Amazonian soci-
eties, and in this way, evaluate the role of the interactions
between Amazonian societies in the development of San
Agustín chiefdoms.
Archaeologically, if the interactions between these
two regions (Andes and Amazonia) were continuous and
pottery (or its contents) was among the items exchanged,
one should expect to see evidence of the movement of
that type of good throughout the Upper Caquetá. On the
other hand, a restricted movement of pottery in the Upper
Caquetá would be an indication of low levels of inter-
action between the highlands and lowlands, and would
undermine the hypothesis of influence of the rain forest
communities in the emergence of social inequalities in San
Agustín. In addition, one would expect that corrugated
ceramics collected in the systematic surface survey would
be nonlocal products; otherwise, it would be pos­sible
to argue that this ceramic style in San Agustín or in the
Upper Caquetá could be an imitation of a foreign style.
N eutron Activation A na lysis
Sampling
Analyses were conducted on a sample of 237 sherds and
9 raw clays collected from the Valencia, Santa Rosa,
Descanse, and Y ­ unguillo-­San Carlos Valleys (Table 2.1).
Sixteen specimens of the sample belonged to the cor-
rugated style. They came from the Santa Rosa (n = 3),
Descanse (n = 2), and ­Yunguillo-­San Carlos Valleys
(n = 11) (Table 2.2).
 Pottery Production and Consumption in the ­Andean-­Amazonian Frontier 19

Methods a ­scatterplot of K and Cr base-­10 logged concentrations

The ceramics were prepared for INAA at the University
of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) Archaeometry
Laboratory according to routine procedures as described
in chapter 1 of this volume. Two irradiations and three
gamma counts produced elemental concentrations values
for up to 33 elements in most of the analyzed samples. Sta-
tistical analyses were subsequently carried out at MURR
on base-­10 logarithms of concentrations for the concen-
tration data using procedures also described in chapter 1.
R esu lts
The ceramic samples separated into three core groups
(Santa Rosa 3, Santa Rosa 4, and Valencia) and four
smaller groups (Santa Rosa 1, Santa Rosa 2, Santa Rosa 5,
and Yunguillo). Forty-­six ceramic samples and one sample
of raw clay could not be assigned to any of the composi-
tional groups. Figure 2.3 shows the first two components
derived from principal component analysis (PCA) of the
­variance-­covariance matrix for 31 elements retained in
the quantitative analysis presenting the seven composi-
tional groups (Ni and As were deleted from consideration
due to the large number of missing values). Figure 2.4 is
Table 2.1. Counts of Pottery and Raw Clay
Samples by Valley*
VALLEY NAME POTSHERDS
Valencia 70
Santa Rosa 73
Descanse 49
Yunguillo-­San Carlos 45
* San Carlos and Yunguillo are two localities located very close to each
other in the same valley.
showing separation of groups Santa Rosa 3, Santa Rosa 4,
and Valencia. Figure 2.5 projects data derived from analy-
sis of raw clay against the 90% confidence ellipses derived
for Santa Rosa 3, Santa Rosa 4, and Valencia shown in the
previous figure. Mahalanobis distance–based probabili-
ties of group membership indicate that samples CGG238,
240, 241, 242, and 243 from Descanse, Yunguillo, and
Santa Rosa have high probability of membership in Santa
Rosa 4. Likewise, CGG244, also from Santa Rosa, exceeds
1% probability of membership in Santa Rosa 3. CGG239,
a sample from Descanse, has less than 1% probability of
membership in any of the core groups but projects favor-
ably with Santa Rosa 2 in multiple projections of the data.
CGG245, a clay sample from Valencia, has a greater than
1% probability of membership in Santa Rosa 4, but this
sample plots with the Valencia reference group in multiple
projections of the data. A second sample from Valencia
(CGG246) has extremely low probabilities of membership
in any of the reference groups.
Thirteen samples of corrugated ceramics were assigned
to the Santa Rosa 4 compositional group. These samples
were collected from the Descanse and ­Yunguillo-­San
Carlos Valleys. The other three samples of corrugated
ceramics collected from the Santa Rosa Valley present a
different signature. One belongs to the Yunguillo compo-
sitional group, one to the Valencia group, and the remain-
ing sample was unassigned.
R AW CL AY
Discussion
2
2 Intraregional Interactions in the Upper Caquetá
4
1 The chemical patterns observed in the Upper Caquetá are
relatively difficult to discern as a consequence of the low
compositional variability within the limits of the study

Table 2.2. Chemical Group Assignments by Valley

VALLEY SANTA SANTA SANTA SANTA SANTA VALENCIA YUNGUILLO UNASSIGNED TOTAL
ROSA 1 ROSA 2 ROSA 3 ROSA 4 ROSA 5

VALENCIA 0 0 1 7 2 42 0 18 70
SANTA ROSA 12 2 15 15 3 5 2 19 73
DESCANSE 0 7 20 15 0 0 0 7 49
SAN CARLOS 0 0 2 20 0 0 1 1 23
YUNGUILLO 0 0 1 11 0 0 8 1 22
TOTAL 12 9 39 68 5 47 11 46 237
 0.14
Santa Rosa 1
Santa Rosa 2
0.10 Santa Rosa 3
Santa Rosa 4
Santa Rosa 5
Valencia
Yunguillo
Unassigned
2
0.06
Component
#2
0.02
PrincipalPC
-0.02 -0.06

Figure 2.3. Scatterplot of PC#1 and PC#2 show-

ing the seven compositional groups. Ellipses
-0.10

- 0.10 -0.06 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 represent 90% confidence level for group
PCComponent
Principal #1 1 ­membership.
2.8

Unassigned Samples
2.6
2.4
ppm)
ppm)
2.2

Santa Rosa 4
(log base-10
Cr (log base-10
2.0

Santa Rosa 3
1.8
Chromium
1.6
1.4

Valencia
1.2

Figure 2.4. Log-­log scatterplot plot of Cr and K in

1.0

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 parts per million. Ellipses represent 90% confi-
K (log base-10
Potassium ppm)
(log base-10 ppm) dence level for membership in the groups.
2.8

Clay Samples
CGG246
2.6
2.4
Chromium (log base-10 ppm)
Cr (log base-10 ppm)

90% Confidence Ellipse for

2.2

Santa Rosa 4

90% Confidence Ellipse for

2.0

Santa Rosa 3 CGG241

1.8

CGG242
CGG238
CGG239 CGG240
CGG243
1.6

CGG244
1.4

CGG245
90% Confidence Ellipse
for Valencia
Figure 2.5. Raw clay samples plotted against
1.2

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 confidence ellipses for the core compositional
K (log(log
Potassium base-10
base-10ppm)
pmm) groups shown in Figure 2.4.
 Pottery Production and Consumption in the ­Andean-­Amazonian Frontier
area. It is probable that several of the clays used to pro-
duce pottery were derived from alluvial sources, which
would explain why clays and pottery from Santa Rosa,
Descanse, and Y ­ unguillo-­San Carlos are similar. However,
the compositional differences between Valencia and the
other valleys allow building some relevant inferences on
ceramic production and in i­nter-­and intraregional inter-
actions in the Upper Caquetá.
Pottery from Valencia seems to be principally a local
product, with some pots coming from the lowest valleys.
Due to the long distance separating the Valencia and
Santa Rosa Valleys (20 km in a straight line), it seems
unlikely that raw clay was the material moving from
region to region, due to the constraints on raw material
transport distances discussed by Arnold (1985). The low
compositional variability in the clays in the foothills of
the Upper Caquetá makes it impossible to ascertain the
loci of production of the foreign pottery collected in the
Valencia Valley, but it is significant that no sherds from
the Yunguillo compositional group, which seems to be
local to the valley of the same name, were found in the
Valencia Valley. Nonlocal sherds collected from Valencia
belong to the compositional groups Santa Rosa 3, 4, and 5
(Table 2.2), but no pattern can be identified in the foreign
sherds (e.g., sherds with elaborate decoration).
Consequently, the distribution of ceramics from the
Valencia compositional group did not reach the lowest
part of the foothills, only the Santa Rosa Valley. Although
the sample is small (n = 2), most decorated sherds found
in the Santa Rosa Valley (with red bands painted over a
­cream-­colored slip) belonged to the Valencia composi-
tional group. This does not mean that all samples from
Valencia were costly ceramics, but it indicates that the
exchange between the two valleys was based not only on
utilitarian vessels (or their contents) but also in material
culture with important symbolic meaning.
The results of the compositional analysis suggest a
movement of pottery between neighboring valleys, spe-
cifically between Valencia and Santa Rosa, which is not
extraordinary, given their close proximity. However, it
seems that distances involved in the movement of pot-
tery were not large enough to be observed, at least in the
­highland-­lowland direction, because of the lack of sam-
ples from the Valencia compositional group in the Des-
canse and Yunguillo Valleys. Although the data are not
conclusive, they point to different dynamics of interac-
tion than those commonly assumed between Andean
and Amazonian communities in southwestern Colombia,
21
with a more spatially restricted circulation of goods, at
least for those produced in the Upper Caquetá.
There is another aspect of the relationship between
Andean and Amazonian communities that the data
from INAA can clarify. As mentioned, one piece of
evidence commonly used to establish the interaction
between highland and lowland communities is the pres-
ence of pottery with a corrugated exterior surface in San
Agustín during the Postclassic period (ca. AD 900–1550)
(Llanos and Alarcón 2000; Llanos and Ordoñez 1998;
­Reichel-­Dolmatoff 1975; Uribe 1981). The corrugated style
is made by digital pressure in the joints of the rolls cre-
ated for making vessels. This type of pottery technology is
widespread in the Amazonian regions of Colombia, Ecua-
dor, and Peru, post-­AD 1000 (Becerra 1998). According
to some scholars (Llanos and Alarcón 2000; Uribe 1981),
pottery with this style was transported from the lowlands
to San Agustín following the Páramo or the La Candela
routes, crossing through the Upper Caquetá. The former
connects the Valencia Valley with the Quinchana site
through the Páramo de las Papas. The latter connects the
Santa Rosa Valley with the most outstanding site of the
San Agustín culture, Mesitas. By using the INAA results,
it is possible to evaluate the type of interaction involved
in the two regions by identifying the loci of production of
corrugated sherds. Were they brought to the study area
by exchange, or were they produced locally by imitating
foreign styles?
Sixteen specimens with corrugated style were ana-
lyzed within the sample. They came from the Santa Rosa,
Descanse, and Yunguillo Valleys. The entire assemblage
from the Descanse and Yunguillo Valleys belonged to
the compositional group Santa Rosa 4. This means that
they could be produced locally in the foothills or in the
Santa Rosa Valley, although we lack information on the
compositional characteristics of the clay used for pot-
tery production in the lowlands. On the other hand, the
three samples collected from the Santa Rosa Valley were
produced with different raw clays, from two or three
areas: one fits with the Yunguillo compositional group,
another fits the Valencia reference group, and the last
one is unassigned. Despite the problems identifying the
loci of production for most of the samples, the evidence
shows that the provenance of corrugated ceramics was
not unidirectional. Corrugated ceramics circulated both
from the valley closest to the Amazonian border and from
the valley next to the Páramo. The small sample size is
not helpful for strong assertions, but the results suggest
22 Gi r a l d o et a l .
that the pottery with corrugated decoration in the Upper
Caquetá is not necessarily the result of exchanged goods
from the lowlands, but rather locally produced, implying
a limited movement of goods between the valleys. In this
sense, the observation of Llanos and Alarcón (2000:39–
40) that the “motifs” of the corrugated ceramics in San
Agustín and the lowlands are not similar makes sense,
despite claims to the contrary (Uribe 1981:271).
To summarize, (1) there is evidence for a limited move-
ment of ceramic vessels throughout the region, (2) corru-
gated pottery was also produced in the Valencia Valley,
(3) the percentage of ­corrugated-­style potsherds collected
from the systematic survey in the Upper Caquetá was
insignificant (less than 0.03% of the ceramic assemblage),
and (4) there are some stylistic differences between the
corrugated ceramics found in San Agustín and those from
the lowlands. These four factors point to very low levels
of pottery movement between the Andean and Amazo-
nian societies as observed in the communities located in
between.
These results present a significant counterpoint to
understanding the development of the social trajectory of
the San Agustín chiefdoms. They indicate that exchange
(even indirectly) of goods, specifically pottery, toward San
Agustín from the Amazonian region did not significantly
impact the consolidation of political structures during the
Postclassic period (AD 900–1550). Few distinctive “Ama-
zonian” pots reached the foothills or the highest section
of the Upper Caquetá. While some corrugated ceramics
were produced in the valley next to the Páramo, their
appearance in San Agustín should be explained by mech-
anisms other than long-­distance exchange or migration.
The common assumption about the interaction between
these two regions in that period seems to originate in the
implicit association between the Inga traders and corru-
gated ceramics, even though they appear in the Colom-
bian lowlands and foothills at very different periods of
time, the end of the fifteenth century AD for the former,
and the ninth century AD for the latter.
Similar conclusions can be made for the Classic period
in San Agustín (ca. AD 1–900), even though there is
no distinctive “Amazonian pottery” next to the Upper
Caquetá region before the ninth century AD. However,
in that period, there is no mention of a San ­Agustín-
­Amazonia relationship based on ceramic similarity but
rather on weak symbolic resemblances between the known
ethnographic Uitoto mythology and San Agustín iconog-
raphy (Duque 1966). More recently, González (2007:123)
has indicated that the long-­distance exchange of ceramic
vessels and obsidian was pivotal for strengthening the
regional political center of the Mesitas community in San
Agustín during the regional Classic period. According to
González (2007:123), the elite “consolidated their strategic
preeminence by promoting local craft production and par-
ticipating in exchange networks.” Unfortunately, González
did not mention who the trade partners of the San Agustín
elites were. Future research will indicate whether there was
pottery movement between the San Agustín and Upper
Caquetá regions.
Conclusions
The studies in southwestern Colombia on the relations
between Andean and Amazonian societies have been
focused on the type of elements moving from the low-
lands to the highlands, but not in the opposite direction.
Ethnohistoric accounts are helpful for identifying some
of the goods obtained by the inhabitants of the mountain-
ous section of the Upper Caquetá from their counterparts
in the lowlands, but these interactions seem to be part of
very recent social dynamics related to the Inca expansion
at the turn of the fifteenth century AD. Corrugated pot-
tery seems to be one of the goods circulating from the
two regions through the foothills, but small amounts of
this type of ceramic have been observed in the Upper
Caquetá, and INAA results do not support exclusive pro-
duction of this type of pottery in the lowlands. Although
there is a low compositional variability in the region from
Santa Rosa to the foothills, it seems that the production of
ceramics was local, and the movement of ceramic v­ essels
was restricted to neighboring valleys. These results show
that pottery was not exchanged between the San Agustín
and Amazonian regions, although shorter distance pot-
tery exchange between these two regions and the upper
Caquetá valleys cannot be excluded. In addition, exchange
of other products and raw materials could have taken
place between these two regions, although archaeological
evidence supporting such interaction has yet to be found.
Some scholars (e.g., Duque 1966; Llanos and Alarcón
2000; Uribe 1981) have inferred a continuous flow of
exotic materials between San Agustín and the Amazonian
region (assuming an important role of Amazonian soci-
eties in the emergence and maintenance of San Agustín
chiefdoms) by using as their strongest evidence similar-
ities between some types of vessels between these two
 Pottery Production and Consumption in the ­Andean-­Amazonian Frontier
regions. The results of the INAA of the ceramics and the
lack of other types of archaeological evidence connect-
ing the highlands and the lowlands do not support such
a hypothesis. Nonetheless, they invite us to look for new
and better evidence to support the possible existence of
such relations.
Future research on clay characterization in zones out-
side the Upper Caquetá, like the Quinchana and Mesi-
tas sites in San Agustín and the flat rain forest, where
the corrugated pottery is more common, would provide
better evidence for the existence of exchange networks
between these regions using the Upper Caquetá as a
direct route.
23
Ack now ledgments
We would like to thank Cristobal Gnecco for allowing
us to make public the results of his research, which was
graciously funded by Colciencias (Colciencias 183–196),
to Gabriela Cervantes for reading a previous draft of
this chapter, and to the anonymous reviewers for greatly
improving the manuscript. Analyses performed in the
Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR were partially sup-
ported by a grant from the National Science Foundation
(#1415403). The INAA data cited in this work is avail-
able from http:​ ​/​/ ​archaeometry​.missouri​.edu ​/ ​datasets ​
/ datasets.html.
 3
Cultural Implications of Instrumental Neutron Activation
Analysis of Ceramics from Palmitopamba, Ecuador
R o n a l d D. L i p p i a n d A l e j a n d r a M . G u d i ñ o
Introduction
The Western Pichincha Project was begun by Lippi in
1984 as a multiyear archaeological exploration of the west-
ern slope of the Andes Mountains in northern Ecua-
dor’s Pichincha Province (Figure 3.1). A regional survey
over several years across diverse zones of approximately
6,000 km2 of rugged cloud forest and tropical rainforest
resulted in the discovery of over 300 archaeological sites,
which undoubtedly comprise only a small fraction of all
sites in the region. Noteworthy types of Yumbo sites dis-
covered by Lippi include dozens of tola (earthen mound)
sites, mostly consisting of large rectangular mounds with
a platform but also including both large and small circu-
lar or elliptical burial mounds. The distribution of tolas
in parts of the Yumbo territory seems to mark ancient
polities or social groups, some of which were mentioned
by name by early Spanish chroniclers. The Yumbos are
known from Spanish documents to have inhabited the
western cloud forest at the time of arrival of the Spanish
and to have conducted extensive trade with various high-
land towns in the vicinity of Quito (Salomon 1997:17–
26). Lippi discovered physical evidence of trade routes
in the form of deeply eroded trails through the rain for-
est. These trails, locally known as culuncos, mostly date
to the Yumbo and historic periods, though some almost
certainly were in use many centuries earlier by Forma-
tive period peoples (possibly as early as 1500 BC). A third
25
notable type of site consists of petroglyphs pecked in river
boulders in the Yumbo territory. Working together with
the Tsáchilas, the modern descendants of the Yumbos, we
have attempted to interpret these symbols but so far with-
out interpretive consensus from the Tsáchilas. Most of the
sites in the region were habitation sites, varying quite a
bit in size. A few forts, or pucaras as they are known in
Kichwa, the Inca dialect still widely spoken in Ecuador,
have also been identified. This lengthy and very challeng-
ing stage of field research culminated with the publication
of a monograph in Spanish (Lippi 1998) and a revised and
condensed version in English (Lippi 2004a).
The Y umbos a nd Incas in
North w ester n Ecua dor
While sites in western Pichincha spanned a few millennia,
the majority were associated with the Yumbos, the Late
period (ca. AD 900–1700) indigenous peoples of the west-
ern cloud forest. The Yumbos were documented meagerly
by the Spanish, and they nearly disappeared by the late
1600s through catastrophic epidemics, migration, forced
labor, and assimilation (Lippi 2004a:23–26; Salomon 1997).
The most easily identifiable ­modern-­day descendants of
the Yumbos are the Tsáchilas (formerly known in Span-
ish as the “Colorados”), an indigenous nation currently
confined to seven small reserves immediately south of the
26 L i ppi a n d Gu di ño
Figure 3.2. A Tsáchila family posed for a portrait near
Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas around 1970. The Tsáchi-
las are the descendants, at least in part, of the Yumbos.
Photo by Ronald Lippi.
Figure 3.1. Map of Ecuador showing the west-
ern Pichincha research region and the loca-
tion of Palmitopamba. Map by Ronald Lippi.
western Pichincha research region and near the boom-
ing city of Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas (Figure 3.2).
Other Yumbo descendants may have migrated eastward
across the Andes Mountains to be assimilated by ­Kichwa-­
speaking tribes such as the Quijos and possibly by other
upper Amazonian people. This is harder to prove due to
the careless proliferation of the term “Yumbo” by Spanish
chroniclers in the sixteenth century and later, as pointed
out by Porras G. (1974:165–175) and Salomon (1997:12).
The imperial army of Tawantinsuyu (the Inca Empire)
pushed northward into m ­ odern-­ day Ecuador from
about AD 1475 to 1525 under the kingships of Tupaq Inca
Yupanki and Wayna Qhapaq. The final northward push
of the empire was led by Wayna Qhapaq but met pro-
longed resistance by a few northern highland chiefdoms
usually referred to collectively as the Caranquis. Lippi has
presented the hypothesis that the Yumbos were derived
from the Caranquis or related Barbacoan peoples in the
northern highlands of Ecuador and migrated to western
Pichincha perhaps a thousand years ago (Lippi 2004b).
It is believed that the IncaCaranqui War lasted at least
a decade and ended around AD 1500 or later (Salomon
1980:219). While the Incas claimed lands to the west of
the Ecuadorian highlands to the Pacific Ocean, this was
mostly in name only; it is not at all clear that the Incas
actually established hegemony or even occupied these
 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Ceramics from Palmitopamba
lowland regions at the far northern end of their empire.
The Spanish gained control of territories today compris-
ing Ecuador beginning in 1534.
The Spanish described an Inca road that went into the
Yumbo territory and mention was made of an Inca gen-
eral who claimed to have taken control of the area as the
Inca army advanced northward toward Colombia in the
late 1400s. Ethnohistorian Salomon (1997:23–25) found
that the Yumbos occupied an anomalous position in the
Inca Empire since they appear not to have been admin-
istratively integrated. He also found accounts of Inca
nobility taking refuge in Yumbo country following the
Spanish conquest. More recently, the Ecuadorian histo-
rian Estupiñán Viteri (2003) found a document alleging
that Rumiñahui, the captain of the personal guard of Ata-
hualpa, the Inca emperor captured and executed by the
Spanish, fled to Yumbo country with some of Atahualpa’s
heirs and possibly even with Atahualpa’s mortal remains,
where Rumiñahui ordered the building of a fort from
which a rebellion was to have been launched. After many
years of surveying in western Pichincha, Lippi has cata-
logued only four Inca forts, and the largest of these is at
Palmitopamba (NL-­20). This site may also be of histor-
ical significance in Ecuador, where Rumiñahui today is
accorded the status of national hero (though he is vilified
in Peru as a traitor in the Inca civil war). Estupiñán Vit-
eri thought this connection was reasonable (Lippi et al.
2003) but subsequently hypothesized that the Inca site of
Mallqui Machay farther south beyond the Yumbo terri-
tory may have been the aforementioned fort.1 Whether or
Figure 3.3. The site of Palmitopamba (NL-­
20) occupies a high hill immediately south
of the town of the same name, which is
mostly hidden in a valley. In the background
is Pichincha Volcano. The city of Quito lies
at its foot on the far side some 45 km to the
­south-­southeast. Photo by Ronald Lippi.
27
not Rumñahui and the corpse of Atahualpa were ever at
Palmitopamba, the site was clearly an important point of
interaction between the Yumbos and the Incas west of the
northern highlands in Ecuador.
Pa lmitopa mba a nd the Thr ee
Cer a mic Assembl ages
To augment sketchy information on the Inca presence in
this tropical region, research shifted in 2002 to excava-
tions at the site of Palmitopamba, which was discovered
by Lippi in 1984 and recognized as a probable Inca for-
tress (pucara) near the northern boundary of the Yumbo
territory (Figure 3.3). The site covers several acres and
is centered on a very high, steep hill immediately south
of the modern town of the same name. Thus, the West-
ern Pichincha Project morphed into the Palmitopamba
Archaeology Project, which continues to the present.
While excavations over seven seasons since 2002 have
indeed confirmed that the site served around the early
1500s at least very briefly as an Inca military site with some
familiar as well as enigmatic stone features, it turns out
that through most of its history, the site was an import-
ant Yumbo center. This can be seen mostly through the
platform mound built on top of the hill with 3–4 m of
fill carried up and deposited, as well as in the several ter-
races constructed on the north slope of the hill. The pres-
ence of a horizontal volcanic tephra (volcanic ash, sand,
and pumice) layer visible in various excavation units and
28 L i ppi a n d Gu di ño
dating to about 900 years ago (a few centuries before the
Incas marched north into Ecuador) demonstrates that
this monumental earthmoving at the site was done by
the Yumbos. Radiocarbon dates confirm that much of the
Yumbo occupation preceded the Inca arrival by centuries.
No Inca pottery has yet been found on the tola at the
site summit, though admittedly excavations there have
been limited so far, but it is found elsewhere at the site
in modest quantities and is even more abundant farther
down the hill. From the apparent absence of Inca pottery
at the summit of the site, we infer the Incas respected the
sacred precinct at the summit and mostly left it alone. The
relative abundance of Inca pottery at historically known
Inca forts in the adjacent highland region is notoriously
low, typically representing less than 10% of all sherds
recovered (Antonio Fresco, personal communication
1987), and that appears to be the case for Palmitopamba
too. At Palmitopamba on the lower terraces, the Inca pot-
tery is within the upper 50 cm and is mixed stratigraph-
ically with Yumbo pottery, which continues down to a
depth of a meter or more.
The most significant Inca ruin on Terrace 4 of the Pal-
mitopamba site is the foundation of a rectangular, stone
masonry building, which was completely buried until
excavated in 2007 and 2008 (Figure 3.4). In two subse-
quent seasons, other features associated with this unfin-
ished building were excavated. All of the Inca stone fea-
tures on Terraces 3 and 4 (well below the Yumbo tola at
the summit) appear to have been abandoned prior to
their completion. This leads one to infer that the Inca
presence at the site was abruptly terminated for reasons
upon which one can only speculate. The arrival of Spanish
troops in highland Ecuador might have been the precipi-
tating factor. Whether or not Rumñahui and Inca troops
were responsible for the incomplete works at Palmito-
pamba is even more difficult to know.
We have also fallen short in determining just how
long the Incas were present at the site. Ethnohistoric evi-
dence mentioned earlier places troops under Inca com-
mand in the northern highlands no earlier than about
1490, around the time of the Inca-­Caranqui War, which is
believed to have lasted a decade or so (Salomon 1980:219).
Whether the first Inca incursion into western Pichincha
was for trading purposes, to establish a western flank in
the war, or for both reasons is uncertain. It is possible
that the Inca presence occurred years later for economic
reasons, or approximately in 1534, when Spanish troops
moved northward into ­present-­day Ecuador under the
command of Sebastián de Benalcázar. Salomon (1997:25–
26) and Estupiñán Viteri (2003) found historic evidence
that the Incas fled into western Pichincha away from the
Spanish and that some Incas remained among the Yum-
bos following Spanish domination in the highlands.
Radiocarbon dating did not provide the precision
needed to specify the time of arrival or the duration of the
Inca presence at Palmitopamba. The dates most closely
associated with the Inca structure cover far too broad a
time range when calibrated; pertinent assays range from
the mid-­1400s to the mid-­1600s (Beta Analytic 2008).
The best determination on historical grounds is that the
Figure 3.4. The stone foundation of a
­never-­finished Inca building excavated on
Terrace 4 at NL-­20. Terrace 4 is 43 m below
the platform mound on the summit. Subse-
quent excavations revealed an enclosed patio
(kancha) adjacent to the building. Photo by
Ronald Lippi.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
when they looked they saw
Aukelenuiaiku still standing.
They then called to him to come
and hide himself between the
rocks in the valley, for they knew
that other death-dealing bolts
were yet to come; but
Aukelenuiaiku answered them:
“You stay there where you are
while I remain here until I shall
kill Kuwahailo.” As soon as the
last death-bolt had passed by,
the nephews of Kuwahailo came
out and stood in the presence of
their uncle. He then asked them:
“How is your sister?” “She is at
home.” “And whence comes this
wizard?” “That is your nephew,
the husband of Namakaokahai.”
When Kuwahailo heard this from
his nephews, he stood there in
fear and trembling, and
wondered what he was to do to
his nephew Aukelenuiaiku, the
hero 25 of Kuaihelani. After a
pause of some time he said to
Aukelenuiaiku: “My nephew, I
have indeed sinned against you,
for I have this day treated you
unkindly. I will therefore make an
offering before you of eight
hundred men.” When Kuwahailo
returned with his eight hundred
mai o ke ahi a me ka hekili, mao
ae la, ike aku la lakou ia
Aukelenuiaiku e ku mai ana. Ia
lakou e nana ana ia
Aukelenuiaiku, kahea aku la
lakou e hele mai a moe a leho
pu iho me lakou ma ke kowa o
ka ala, no ka mea, hookahi
make i koe, oia kela ahi hope a
me ka hekili a Kuwahailo. I aku o
Aukelenuiaiku ia lakou: “Moe ia
no oukou ma laila, maanei no
wau e ku ai, a pepehi aku ia
Kuwahailo.” A hala na make a
Kuwahailo i hope, oili aku la na
keiki a ku ana i mua o
Kuwahailo. Ninau mai ko lakou
makuakane: “Pehea ko oukou
kaikuahine?” “Aia no ke noho la.”
“A nohea hoi nei kanaka
kupua?” “O ko hunona ia o ke
kane ia a Namakaokahai.” A
lohe o Kuwahailo i keia olelo a
na keiki, ku iho la ia me ka
makau a me ka haalulu, a
noonoo iho la ia i kana mea e
hana aku ai ia Aukelenuiaiku, ka
ihu kaeaea o Kuaihelani. I aku la
ia i kana hunona: “E, i mua ou
wau i hana aku ai i ka hewa, a
me ka pono ole, a nolaila, ke
waiho aku nei au i ka mohai i
mua ou, elua lau kanaka (ewalu
men, and they stood before
Aukelenuiaiku, Aukelenuiaiku
turned to Kuwahailo and asked
him: “What are these men for?”
His uncle replied: “They are my
offerings to you.” Aukelenuiaiku
replied: “Leave the men for your
grandnephew and as people for
the land.”
After this the brothers-in-law of
Aukelenuiaiku delivered their
message, saying: “We have
been sent by your niece to bring
you a message.” Kuwahailo then
asked: “What is the message?”
“She told us to tell you, ‘that the
things above, below, in the
uplands, in the lowlands, are
your [new] relative’s: you will live
under him: everything has been
given to this man,’ her husband.”
This was agreeable to
Kuwahailo. After this, they all sat
down and held a council. In the
council, Makalii came and met
Aukelenuiaiku. In coming to
meet Aukelenuiaiku, Makalii also
brought his wife,
Malanaikuaheahea.
We will here speak a few words
about the wife of Makalii. This
haneri ia).” A hiki o Kuwahailo
me na lau kanaka elua i mua o
Aukelenuiaiku, ninau mai o
Aukelenuiaiku: “He kanaka aha
keia?” Olelo mai kona
makuahunowai: “He mohai ia
oe.” I aku o Aukelenuiaiku: “Ua
oki ke kanaka no ka moopuna, a
no ka aina no hoi.”
Mahope o laila, hai aku la na
keiki ia Kuwahailo: “He olelo ka
makou i hoouna ia mai nei e ko
kaikamahine e hai aku ia oe.”
Ninau aku o Kuwahailo: “Heaha
kana olelo ia oukou?” Eia kana
olelo ia makou: “O luna, o lalo, o
uka, o kai, maluna ko hunona,
malalo aku oe e noho ai, a me
na mea a pau loa.” Ma keia mau
olelo a na keike he mea oluolu
loa ia i ko Kuwahailo manao, ae
mahope o keia olelo ana,
ahaolelo iho la lakou. Ma keia
ahaolelo ana, hele mai la o
Makalii e halawai me
Aukelenuiaiku. Ma keia hele ana
mai o Makalii, hele pu mai la me
kana wahine me
Malanaikuaheahea.
Maanei e kamailio uuku no ka
wahine a Makalii. O keia wahine
woman, Malanaikuaheahea, was
a very beautiful woman. Her
skin, to look upon her, was red
as fire. On coming out of her
house, her beauty
overshadowed the rays of the
sun, so that darkness covered
the land, and the red rain would
be seen approaching; the fog
would also come, and after these
things had been seen the fine
rain would come, then the red
waters would flow and the
lightning would play in the
heavens. After these things, then
the form of Malanaikuaheahea
would be seen coming along
over the tips [80]of the fingers of
her servants, in all her beauty. 26
Makalii thought a good deal of
his wife and he made much of
her. The sun was eclipsed by
her, and the rainbow was her
footstool. When Aukelenuiaiku
saw these different things and
then the wife of Makalii, he grew
faint and dizzy, and could hardly
control himself, so he made up
his mind to come back to earth.
o Malanaikuaheahea, he wahine
maikai a me ka nani loa, o kona
kino ke nana aku, ua like me ka
ula o ke ahi ka ula. I kona ku ana
a hele mai kona hale noho mai,
ua paku ia ka malamalama o ka
la, a pouli, nee mai la ka uakoko,
uhi mai la ka ohu, kokolo mai la
ka noe, halii mai la ke awa, kahe
mai la ka wai ula, olapa ka uila.
Mahope o keia mau mea, ike ia
mai la ke kino o
Malanaikuaheahea, e hele mai
ana ma luna o ka welelau o ka
[81]lima o na kanaka, ua nani loa
me ka hiwahiwa ua wahine la ke
nana aku, nokamea, ua
hoohinuhinu loa o Makalii i kana
wahine, a ua nani loa. O ka la,
ua pau ia ma hope ona, o ke
anuenue malalo o kona mau
wawae. A ike o Aukelenuiaiku i
keia mau mea a pau i mua ona,
a me ka wahine a Makalii, ua
maule kona manao, ua poniuniu
kona lunaikehala, a ua maule
kona noonoo kanaka, nolaila,
olelo o Aukelenuiaiku, e hoi i lalo
nei.
 CHAPTER XII.
Relating to
Kaumaiilunaoholaniku.
When Aukelenuiaiku arrived in
the presence of his wife and their
child, after an absence of several
days, he remained with her for
about two months. One day on
taking a nap at noontime he fell
into a deep sleep and he
dreamed a dream in which he
saw the spirit of his nephew,
Kaumaiilunaoholaniku. 27 This
boy was the son of his oldest
brother, the boy who
accompanied them on the
voyage from Kuaihelani, the son
of Kekamakahinuiaiku, the
brother who had a violent
temper. At sight of the spirit of
his nephew, Aukelenuiaiku wept
in his sleep, and when he awoke
he was still crying. Upon waking
from his sleep he could not get
the effects off his mind and he
remembered his nephew and
brothers, so he wept aloud.
While Aukelenuiaiku was
MOKUNA XII.
No
Kaumaiilunaoholaniku.
A hiki o Aukelenuiaiku i mua o
kana wahine a me ka laua keiki
noho iho la laua he kane a he
wahine, a hala elua malama. Ia
wa, moe iho la o Aukelenuiaiku i
ke awakea, a i loko o keia moe
ana, ike aku la ia ma ka moe
uhane i ka uhane o kana keiki, o
Kaumaiilunaoholaniku. O keia
keiki a Aukelenuiaiku, oia no
kela keiki a lakou i holo pu mai ai
mai Kuaihelani mai, a kela
kaikuaana huhu o
Aukelenuiaiku, a
Kekamakahinuiaiku. A ike o
Aukelenuiaiku i ka uhane o ua
keiki la, uwe iho la ia i loko o
kona wa hiamoe, a puoho ae la
me ia uwe no.
Ma keia ala ana, kau mai la ka
halialia ia Aukelenuiaiku, no ke
keiki a me na kaikuaana, nolaila,
uwe hamama ae la ia. Ia
Aukelenuiaiku e uwe hamama
ana, ninau aku la kana wahine o
weeping his wife asked him:
“What are you crying about?” “I
am crying for the love of my
child.” “Have you a child, then?”
“Not mine, the son of my oldest
brother. He died with my
brothers on the day our ship
arrived here. In my dream I saw
his spirit coming up from the
bottom of the sea, followed by
the spirits of his father and
uncles.”
When his wife heard this, she
said to her husband: “Your
nephew can be saved.”
Aukelenuiaiku asked: “How can I
bring him back to life?” The wife
replied: “Only when you obey my
instructions; then, and only then,
will your nephew come back to
life.” “What is it you wish me to
do?” “Take some food and meat
with you out of doors and there
have your meal. Perchance your
nephew’s spirit will see you
eating and will come to you. If
the spirit does come to you, don’t
attempt to catch it, 28 not even if it
comes and stands at your back;
but if it comes and sits on your
lap, then catch it and your
nephew and brothers will be
Namakaokahai: “Heaha hoi kau
e uwe nei?” “E uwe ana au i ke
aloha i kuu keiki.” “Ua loaa keiki
no ka oe?” “Aohe na’u, na ko’u
kaikuaana, i ka la a makou i ku
mai ai ianei ka make ana. A
maloko o kuu moe uhane, ike
aku nei au i kona uhane, e pii
mai ana mai loko mai o ke kai,
oia ka maka mua o na uhane a
pau loa.”
A lohe kana wahine i keia mau
olelo a kana kane, i mai la ia:
“Ua ola ko keiki.” I aku o
Aukelenuiaiku: “Pehea e ola ai?”
I mai kana wahine: “Aia a
hoolohe oe i ka’u olelo, alaila,
ola ko keiki.” “Pehea au e
hoolohe ai?” “E lawe oe i ka ai a
me ka ia a waho, i laila oe e ai
ai, malama o ike mai ka uhane o
ko keiki i ko ai aku, hele mai. A i
hiki mai ka uhane o ko keiki i ko
alo, mai hopu oe, a i hele a ku
ma ko kua mai hopu no oe, aka,
i hele mai a noho i luna o ko
uha, alaila oe hopu ae, ola ko
keiki a me ou kaikuaana, aole e
make, no ka mea, e pii ana ka
uhane i ke kuahiwi, i ka ai pioia.”
restored to life again. Their
spirits were on their way to the
mountains to gather food.” 29
As soon as these instructions
were given him Aukelenuiaiku
did as he was told by his wife.
While he was eating, the spirit of
his nephew came to him. The
wife then said to Aukelenuiaiku:
“Be quick with your meal so that
the spirit of your nephew will
remain with you longer.” While
Aukelenuiaiku was eating very
fast, the spirit kept on going
around him at his back and in
front of him. As the spirit came
nearer and got quite close to
Aukelenuiaiku, Aukelenuiaiku
attempted to catch [82]it; when he
did this it disappeared. At this his
wife said: “You will not be able to
save your nephew now, because
you acted too hastily. Had you
obeyed my instructions, he
would have been brought to life
again. Now the spirit of your
nephew is dead.” When
Aukelenuiaiku heard this from
his wife, he became down-
hearted and believed what his
wife told him, that the spirit of his
nephew was now beyond
Mahope o keia mau olelo, hana
aku la o Aukelenuiaiku e like me
na olelo a kana wahine, ia ia e ai
ana launa mai la ka uhane o ke
keiki. I aku ka wahine ia
Aukelenuiaiku: “E wikiwiki kau ai
ana i noho paa mai ka uhane o
ko keiki.” Ia Aukelenuiaiku e ai
wikiwiki ana, poai mai la ka
uhane o ke keiki ma kona mau
aoao a pau loa, ma ke kua a ma
ke alo. No keia kokoke loa o ka
uhane o ua keiki la, hopu aku la
o Aukelenuiaiku, ia wa, nalowale
ka uhane o ke keiki. I aku ka
wahine: “Aole e loaa [83]ko keiki,
ua wikiwiki oe i ka hopu, ina oe i
hoolohe i ka’u olelo, ina ua ola
ko keiki. Ua make loa aku la ka
uhane o ko keiki.”
Ma keia olelo a kana wahine, he
mea kaumaha loa ia i ko
Aukelenuiaiku manao, a ua
hoomaopopo loa iho la ia e like
me na olelo a kana wahine, e
make io ana no ka uhane o ke
keiki. Nolaila, hooke ai iho la o
Aukelenuiaiku, maloko o na la
recovery. Aukelenuiaiku
therefore refused to take food for
five days and five nights; he
would not touch either food or
water, and he denied himself
everything, for he was so sorry
for his nephew. When
Namakaokahai saw her husband
refuse to take food she asked
him: “Why have you refused to
take food?” Her husband replied:
“You know quite well why I have
refused food, my wife; that is, the
spirit of my nephew. I will not
take food until my days of grief
are over; then I will again take
food.”
Because of this reply made by
her husband, sadness entered
the heart of Namakaokahai for
him; so she said to her husband:
“If you have great strength and
courage, then your nephew and
brothers will have some chance
of coming back to life again; but
if your courage fails you, then
they will never be restored to life
again.” Aukelenuiaiku then
asked his wife: “What is it that I
must do with my strength and
courage?” “In trying to procure
the water of everlasting life of
elima, a me na po elima, aohe ai
i ka ai, aohe inu i ka wai, pela no
a pau na mea e ae, no ka nui o
ke aloha i ke keiki.
A ike o Namakaokahai i ko
Aukelenuiaiku hooke ai, i aku ia i
kana kane: “Heaha kou mea i
haalele ai i ka ai?” I aku ke kane:
“Ua ike no oe e ka wahine i ke
kumu o ko’u hooke ai ana, oia
no ka uhane o kuu keiki; nolaila,
aia a pau ae kuu kaumaha,
alaila, ai aku no wau i ka ai.”
No keia mea, komo mai la ke
aloha i loko o ka wahine no kana
kane, nolaila, olelo aku la ia i ke
kane: “Aia a nui ko ikaika, ola ko
keiki, a me ou kaikuaana, aka, i
emi ko ikaika, aole e ola ko keiki
a me ou kaikuaana.” I aku o
Aukelenuiaiku i ka wahine:
“Heaha ia mea a’u e hana aku ai
me ka ikaika?” “O ka wai ola loa
a Kane. Ina i loaa ia oe, ola ko
keiki a me ou kaikuaana.” Ma
keia olelo a kana wahine, lalau
iho la o Aukelenuiaiku i ka ai a
me ka ia, a ai iho la, o ke kumu o
Kane. 30 If you are able to
procure this, then your nephew
and brothers will live.” When
Aukelenuiaiku heard this from
his wife he took food and meat;
the reason of this was because
he heard that it was possible to
save his nephew and brothers.
After he had taken food,
Aukelenuiaiku said to his wife:
“Where is the road that will lead
me to the water of everlasting life
of Kane?” His wife replied: “I will
show you the way. From this
place where we are standing you
must go straight to the rising
sun, where you will obtain the
water of everlasting life of Kane.”
CHAPTER XIII.
How Aukelenuiaiku
Went in Search of the
Water of Life of Kane.
We will here see the power and
courage of Aukelenuiaiku on his
ka ai ana, o ka lohe ana i ka
mea e loaa ai o ka uhane o ke
keiki, a me na kaikuaana ona.
Mahope o ka ai ana, ninau aku o
Aukelenuiaiku i ka wahine:
“Mahea ko’u alanui e kii ai i ka
wai ola loa a Kane?” I aku ka
wahine: “Eia ko alanui e hele ai;
mai ke alo o kaua a ka hikina a
ka la malaila oe e hele ai, loaa
ka wai ola a Kane.”
MOKUNA XIII.
No ka Imi ana o
Aukelenuiaiku i ka Wai
Ola Loa a Kane.
Maanei e ike ai kakou i ko
Aukelenuiaiku mana a me kona
mission in a strange land in
search of the water of life of
Kane. The wife then said to her
husband: “On this direct line you
must go without once departing
from it. You must not go towards
the right, for you will then be
wandering in the sky and die.
You must not go to the left of this
line, for you will then fall into
space and you will be lost. All
these instructions you must keep
in your mind.” As soon as his
wife concluded with her
instructions, Aukelenuiaiku took
up the box which contained his
god Lonoikoualii, put it under his
arm and then put on his robe of
ashes. When Aukelenuiaiku was
ready to proceed on his journey,
he fell on his wife’s neck and
they kissed each other, and then
made his flight toward the rising
sun.
After Aukelenuiaiku had been
gone about a month,
Namakaokahai came out of her
dwelling-house and looked
about. At the end of another
month she again went out [84]and
looked, and there she saw her
husband still flying. She then
hele ana i ka aina malihini e huli
i ka wai ola a Kane. Olelo aku ka
wahine i kana kane: “Maluna o
keia kaha pololei oe e hele ai,
malaila oe e lele pololei ai, mai
lele oe ma ka hema o ke kaha, o
hala oe i ka lewa, make oe. A
mai lele oe ma ka akau o ke
kaha o haule oe i ka nenelu
make oe, aole oe e ola. O keia
mau olelo a pau loa, e hoopaa
oe ma ko naau.” A pau na olelo
a ka wahine i kana kane, lalau
aku la o Aukelenuiaiku i ka pahu
o kona akua o Lonoikoualii,
hookomo ae la maloko o kona
poaeae, aahu iho la i ke kapa
lehu mawaho ona. A makaukau
ko Aukelenuiaiku hele, lele aku
la ia a aloha i ka wahine, honi
iho la laua, a pau ke aloha ana o
Aukelenuiaiku me kana wahine o
Namakaokahai, lele aku la ia ma
ka hikina a ka la.
A hala ka mahina hookahi o ko
Aukelenuiaiku lele ana, hemo ae
la o Namakaokahai a waho o ka
hale, nana ae la. Mahope o keia
nana ana, noho iho la o
Namakaokahai [85]hookahi
mahina hou, alua mahina, hemo
ae la a waho nana, i nana ae ka
remained for another month, at
the end of which time she again
looked for her husband, but after
looking in all directions she was
unable to see him. After looking
for some time without seeing
him, she began to have fears
that he must be dead for having
gone outside of the straight limits
directed him, and therefore he
must have fallen into space. 31
She began to weep and wail for
her husband, for she loved him
much. When her brothers heard
the weeping they came to find
out the cause. When they came
in her presence, they asked her:
“Why are you weeping?” “Your
brother-in-law is dead.”
We will here say a few words
relating to the relatives of
Namakaokahai and how they all
mourned for Aukelenuiaiku.
After the brothers came to
Namakaokahai, she sent them
all to get all from above and
bring those who were there to
mourn for Aukelenuiaiku. These
were, the night, the day, the sun,
the stars, the thunder, the
rainbow, the lightning, the water-
hana, e lele ana no ke kane.
Noho hou iho la ia kakali,
hookahi mahina hou, a hala ia
mahina, nana hou ae la ia, aohe
ike ia o Aukelenuiaiku. Ma keia
nalo ana o Aukelenuiaiku mai ko
Namakaokahai maka aku,
manao iho la ia ua make kana
kane, no ka lele ana ma waho o
ke kaha pololei. Ma kona
noonoo, ua haule o
Aukelenuiaiku i ka nenelu o ka
lewa nuu a me ka lewa lani.
Mahope o keia, uwe hamama ae
la o Namakaokahai i ke aloha i
ke kane. Ma keia uwe ana, lohe
aku la na kaikunane i keia leo
uwe, hele mai la lakou e ike,
ninau mai la: “Heaha kau e uwe
nei?” “O ke kaikoeke o oukou ua
make.” Ma keia wahi, e kamailio
iki kakou no na mea a pau loa, i
ko lakou uwe ana a me ke
kanikau ana no Aukelenuiaiku.
A hiki na kaikunane i mua o
Namakaokahai, kena aku la ia:
“E kii i na mea a pau o luna, e
iho mai e kanikau no
Aukelenuiaiku, oia ka po, ke ao,
ka la, ka hoku, ka hekili, ke
anuenue, ka uwila, ka waipuilani,
ka ohu, ka ua noe, ka mahina
spout, the fog, the fine rain, the
moon, Kaukihikamalama, 32 the
grandfather of Namakaokahai.
“Bring them all down,” she said.
“If they refuse to come to weep
for my husband, I will kill them
all.” After ordering her brothers
to do this they proceeded on
their way, and in course of a very
short time everybody came, for
they feared death by
Namakaokahai.
After the arrival of all these
people, Namakaokahai again
sent out her brothers to go and
bring those who were in heaven.
They were, Kuwahailo, Makalii,
Kamalanaikuaheahea, Kukuena,
Mahuia, Ikuwa and Welehu. “Tell
all these people to come down
and weep for my husband. If
they refuse to come in
obedience to my commands, I
will kill them all. I also want you
to tell my cousin Makalii, that his
wife must cease coming on the
hands of the people; 33 if he
disregards this, I will kill him this
day.”
In a very short time this message
was delivered and the people all
oia o Kaukihikamalama, he
kupunakane no Namakaokahai.
O lakou a pau loa, ina aole lakou
e hiki mai e uwe i kuu kane, pau
loa lakou i ka make ia’u.”
Mahope o keia olelo ana, ua
kiina na mea a pau loa, a ua
akoakoa mai lakou i loko o ka
wa pokole loa, no ka makau o
make ia Namakaokahai.
A hiki mai keia poe, kena hou
aku la o Namakaokahai: “E kii i
ko ka lani poe, oia keia,
Kuwahailo, Makalii,
Kamalanaikuaheahea, Kukuena,
Mahuia, Ikuwa, Welehu. O keia
poe a pau loa, e iho mai lakou i
lalo nei e uwe kanikau ai kuu
kane, ina aole lakou e hiki mai i
ka’u kauoha pau lakou i ka make
ia’u. A e olelo aku oukou i kuu
kaikunane ia Makalii, pau ka
hele ana mai o ka wahine
maluna o ka lima o na kanaka,
ina ia e hoole i keia, make ia ia’u
i keia la.”
Mahope o keia mau olelo, ua
makaukau na mea a pau loa, a
came together and joined in
weeping for Aukelenuiaiku, the
husband of their queen.
We will now take up again the
flight of Aukelenuiaiku.
In this flight, Aukelenuiaiku did
not fly within the straight limits
given him, so he fell into space
and he grew weaker and weaker
until he was almost dead. In this
long flight, the arm under which
the box containing the god was
held, became so tired that he
changed the box under the other
arm; in doing this the god
Lonoikoualii saw for the first time
that they had departed from the
direct line shown them by
Namakaokahai. Lonoikoualii
then said to Aukelenuiaiku: “We
are flying outside of the limits
given us and not on the line. The
fire is burning there on the earth
and I see everybody has gone
down below except one person.”
Aukelenuiaiku asked: “Who is it
that is still up here?”
Lonoikoualii, his god, replied:
“That thing stationed up there; fly
ua akoakoa i loko o ka wa
pokole. O ka hana a keia poe a
pau loa, o ke kanikau i ke kane a
ke ’lii wahine, oia no o
Aukelenuiaiku. Ma keia kamailio
ana, e hoi hou kakou e olelo no
ka lele ana o Aukelenuiaiku.
Ma keia lele ana o
Aukelenuiaiku, aole oia i lele
pono maluna o ke au o ke kaha
pololei, nolaila, ua haule loa
kona lele ana ma ka nenelu o ka
lewa, a kokoke loa e make. A
ma keia lele ana hoi, ua lolohi
loa ko Aukelenuiaiku lima i ka
paa i ka pahu o kona akua, o
Lonoikoualii, nolaila, hoololi ae la
ia ma kekahi aoao, ma keia
hoololi ana, ike iho la o
Lonoikoualii ke ’kua, ua haalele
laua i ke au o ke kaha, kahi a
Namakaokahai i olelo mai ai.
Nolaila, olelo ae la o Lonoikoualii
ia Aukelenuiaiku: “Ke lele nei
kaua ma kahi e, aole maluna o
ke au o ka aina, aia ke a mai la
ke ahi i ka honua, ua pau na
mea a pau loa i lalo, a, hookahi
wale no mea i koe i luna nei.”
Ninau aku o Aukelenuiaiku:
“Owai ka mea i koe i luna nei?” I
aku o Lonoikoualii, kona akua:
for it and hold it fast, and then
we will be saved.”
The object which the god
Lonoikoualii referred to was the
grandfather of Namakaokahai,
Kaukihikamalama, the moon.
The reason why he was later
than the [86]others in obeying the
summons of his granddaughter
was because he was delayed in
preparation of food for him on
the way to the earth. But before
he was ready to come he was
held by Aukelenuiaiku, and
because of this fact we now see
the moon not quite as bright as it
used to be. It was because
Aukelenuiaiku held it so tightly.
Anyway, that is the reason given
in this story.
When Aukelenuiaiku and
Lonoikoualii landed on the moon,
the moon in disgust asked of
Aukelenuiaiku: “Whose
conceited child are you? My
back has never been climbed by
my own grandchild,
Namakaokahai, and here you
have done it.” “I am your own
child.” “Mine by whom?”
Aukelenuiaiku replied: “Yours. I
“O kela mea e kau mai la, e lele
pono oe a laila, puliki oe a paa
loa, alaila, ola [87]kaua.” E pono
e olelo uuku kakou no kela mea
a ke ’kua o Aukelenuiaiku e
kuhikuhi nei, i maopopo. O ke
kupunakane ia o Namakaokahai,
o Kaukihikamalama (he mahina).
O kona mea i lohi ai i lima, a ike
ia ai e Lonoikoualii, o ka
hoomakaukau ana i o nona e
lele ai mai luna mai a ka honua.
Aka, mamua o kona makaukau
ana e lele, ua paa i ka hopu ia e
Aukelenuiaiku, a ma keia hopu
ana a Aukelenuiaiku, ua
puahilohilo ka mahina ke nana
aku. O ke kumu i puahilohilo ai o
ka mahina, o ka puliki ana o
Aukelenuiaiku, pela ka mea i
olelo ia maloko o keia moolelo.
A kau o Aukelenuiaiku a me
Lonoikoualii i luna o ka mahina,
ninau ae la ka mahina me ka
hookae ia Aukelenuiaiku: “Nawai
ke kupu o oe e na kanaka
hookano? Aole i pii ia ko’u kua e
ka’u moopuna ponoi, e
Namakaokahai, a ia oe, pii ia
ana ko’u kua.” “Nau no ke kupu,
owau nei la.” “Na’u na wai?” I
aku o Aukelenuiaiku: “Nau no.”
am the child of Kapapaiakea with
Iku.” Kaukihikamalama then
said: “Are you the ward of
Kapoino and Kamooinanea?”
“Yes, I am he.” The moon
replied: “You came near being
killed, my lord.” This
conversation, in the heaven
between Aukelenuiaiku and
Kaukihikamalama, was
overheard by Namakaokahai,
who then knew for the first time
that her husband was no other
person than Aukelenuiaiku,
because the name by which she
knew him was Kanakaokai.
Therefore she said to her father
and brothers: “How strange this
is! I thought that this person was
somebody else altogether, but I
now see it is Aukelenuiaiku, the
son of Kapapaiakea with Iku,
and the ward of Kapoino 34 and
Kamooinanea.”
After this, Namakaokahai called
out to Kaukihikamalama to come
to her with his grandson
Aukelenuiaiku. When
Aukelenuiaiku was returning to
the earth, Namakaokahai
commanded that all the different
lights return to their respective
Olelo ae o Kaukihikamalama: “Oi
ana kahi o ka pili ana?” “Owau
ke keiki a Kapapaiakea laua o
Iku.” I mai o Kaukihikamalama:
“O ka hanai no oe a Kapoino
laua o Kamooinanea?” “Ae,
owau no.” I aku ka mahina: “Mai
make e kuu haku.” Ma keia
kamailio ana a Aukelenuiaiku me
Kaukihikamalama i ka lani, ua
lohe o Namakaokahai i lalo nei i
ko laua olelo ana. Ia wa, akahi
no a maopopo ia ia o
Aukelenuiaiku keia, no ka mea,
o ka inoa o Aukelenuiaiku ia
lakou, o Kanakaokai. Nolaila,
olelo ae la o Namakaokahai i
kona makuakane, a me kona
mau kaikunane: “Kupanaha! kai
no he kanaka e keia, aole ka; eia
no ka o Aukelenuiaiku, ke keiki a
Kapapaiakea laua o Iku, ka
hanai a Kapoino laua o
Kamooinanea.”
Mahope o laila, kahea ae la o
Namakaokahai ia
Kaukihikamalama e lele mai, me
ka moopuna, oia o
Aukelenuiaiku. A hoi mai la o
Aukelenuiaiku i ka honua, kena
ae la o Namakaokahai i na mea
hoomalamalama a pau loa e lele
stations in the heaven so as to
give Aukelenuiaiku light by which
to return to earth; these being
the sun, the daylight, the
lightning and the fire. When
Aukelenuiaiku again reached the
earth the people all cried for joy.
After the weeping, Kuwahailo,
Makalii, Kamalanaikuaheahea,
Kaukihikamalama and the others
prepared to return to heaven.
After the return of their friends,
Aukelenuiaiku and
Namakaokahai for a long time
remained by themselves, as
husband and wife. After this,
however, Namakaokahai said to
her husband: “You must make
another search for the water of
everlasting life of Kane.”
Aukelenuiaiku agreed to this.
Namakaokahai then said to him:
“I want you to watch the course
you are to go by. From the door
of our house in a straight line to
the rising sun, and I want you to
remember this: that you must go
over this course from one end to
the other, and you must not go
outside of these limits, for if you
do you will die.” At the close of
the instructions, Aukelenuiaiku
i luna o ka lani, i malamalama o
Aukelenuiaiku ke hoi mai, oia ka
la, ke ao, ka uwila, ke ahi.
A hiki o Aukelenuiaiku i lalo nei,
uwe iho la lakou, a pau ka uwe
ana, makaukau o Kuwahailo,
Makalii, Malanaikuaheahea,
Kaukihikamalama, e hoi. A pau
lakou i ka hoi i luna o ka lani,
noho iho la o Aukelenuiaiku me
Namakaokahai he manawa loihi
loa, ma ke ano o ke kane a me
ka wahine; a mahope o laila
olelo aku o Namakaokahai i ke
kane: “E imi hou ae oe i ka wai
ola loa a Kane.” Ae aku o
Aukelenuiaiku i keia olelo a kana
wahine, alaila, olelo aku o
Namakaokahai: “Ke hoomoe nei
au i keia auhau, mai ka puka o
ka hale o kaua a ka hikina a ka
la, nolaila, e nana pono oe me
ka malama loa. Maanei oe e
hele ai, mai keia kihi a kela kihi,
again began his second flight
toward heaven. At the end of the
long flight he stood on the edge
of a hole, in the bottom of which
was kept the water of everlasting
life of Kane. The journey was
only completed, however, after a
flight of six months.
As Aukelenuiaiku stood on the
edge of the hole he saw
Kanenaiau, the guard who was
placed there by Kamohoalii to
keep away all intruders. When
Aukelenuiaiku [88]saw him he
flew and lit on the back of the
guard. While Aukelenuiaiku was
perched on his back, he asked in
anger and hatred: “Say, you are
awfully conceited! Whose
conceited child are you? My
back has never been climbed by
my grandchild Kamohoalii, and
here you have come and done
it.” Aukelenuiaiku replied: “Your
own.” “Mine by whom?” “I am the
child of Kapapaiakea and Iku.”
“Are you the grandchild of
Kapoino and Kamooinanea?”
“Yes,” said Aukelenuiaiku.
maluna pono o ke au o ka aina a
me ke kaha pololei loa, mai lele
oe ma keia aoao, a ma kela
aoao, o make oe.”
A pau ke kamailio ana a
Namakaokahai ia Aukelenuiaiku,
lele aku la ia i ka lani, a ku ma
ke kae o ka lua, aia i lalo o ia lua
ka wai ola loa a Kane. O ka loihi
nae, o ka manawa o ka lele ana,
eono mahina. Ma keia ku ana o
Aukelenuiaiku i luna o ke kae o
ka lua, lele aku la ia a kau ana i
luna o Kanenaiau, he kiai ia i
hoonoho ia malaila e nana a
pepehi aku i ke kupu hiki ma
laila, na Kamohoalii i hoonoho
aku i [89]laila. Ia Aukelenuiaiku e
ku ana ma kona kua, ninau ae la
ia me ka huhu hookae: “E!
hookano wale oe? nawai ke
kupu o oe? Aole i pii ia ko’u kua
e ka’u moopuna e Kamohoalii, a
ia oe ka hoi pii ia ko’u kua.” I iho
o Aukelenuiaiku: “Nau no.” “Na’u
na wai?” “O ke keiki au a
Kapapaiakea laua o Iku.” “O ka
moopuna oe a Kapoino laua me

When the guard heard these
words from Aukelenuiaiku, he
greeted him, saying: “My
greetings to you, my lord. What
has brought you here?”
Aukelenuiaiku replied: “I have
come for the water of everlasting
life of Kane, for my nephew and
my brothers.” Kanenaiau then
asked: “Isn’t it all gone?”
Aukelenuiaiku replied: “No, it is
not all gone.” Kanenaiau said:
“Look at my middle.” While
Aukelenuiaiku was looking at the
middle of Kanenaiau, he was
instructed as to the course by
which he was to fly, as follows:
“Where art thou, don’t fly on this
side, for you will strike the
bamboo growing in this place; if
you strike the bamboo, the
sound will reach the ears of your
cousin, and the water will be
covered up and you will not get
it. You must therefore fly on this
side and you will be able to get
the water of everlasting life of
Kane.”
At the end of these instructions
Kamooinanea?” “Ae,” aku o
Aukelenuiaiku, “ae.”
A lohe kela i keia mau olelo a
Aukelenuiaiku, aloha mai la ia:
“E walina hoi ia oe e kuu haku.
Heaha kau huakai o ka hiki ana
mai?” Olelo aku o Aukelenuiaiku:
“I kii mai nei au i ka wai ola loa a
Kane, no kuu keiki a me o’u
kaikuaana.” Ninau mai o
Kanenaiau: “Ua pau loa nae
paha?” I aku o Aukelenuiaiku:
“Aole i pau.” I mai la kela: “Nana
ia i kuu piko.” Ia Aukelenuiaiku e
nana ana i ka piko, kuhikuhi mai
la kela i ke ala e lele ai. “Auhea
oe, mai lele ma keia aoao o pa
oe i ka ohe, no ka mea, ina e pa
ka ohe, o ka halulu no ia o ka
ohe, a lohe ko kaikuaana, paa
ka wai, aole e loaa mai ia oe.
Nolaila, maanei oe e lele ai,
alaila, loaa ia oe ka wai ola loa a
Kane.”
A pau ka olelo ana ia
Aukelenuiaiku continued on his
flight. After flying for some time
he saw and lit on Hawewe, when
the same questions were asked
relating to Aukelenuiaiku’s
connections to him. Hawewe
asked: “My lord, what is your
object in coming here?” “I have
come in search of the water of
life of Kane.” Hawewe then
answered: “You must not fly on
the left side, else you will strike
the lama trees, and the sound
will reach the ears of your cousin
below, and you will never be able
to get the water of life of Kane.
You must therefore fly on this
side, then you will get what you
wish.” These two men were the
granduncles of Aukelenuiaiku on
the side of his mother,
Kapapaiakea. The time
consumed by Aukelenuiaiku in
his flight from the first man to the
second man was two months.
After the conversation which was
held between him and Hawewe,
Aukelenuiaiku flew until he lit on
Kanenaenae. At the end of the
questions and answers relating
to the parents of Aukelenuiaiku,
Kanenaenae then knew that he
Aukelenuiaiku, mahope o laila,
lele aku la o Aukelenuiaiku a kau
ana i luna o Hawewe. E like me
na olelo i kela mau mea i hala
aku, pela no ka olelo ana
maanei. I mai o Hawewe: “E kuu
haku, heaha kau huakai o ka hiki
ana mai?” “I hele mai au e imi i
ka wai ola a Kane.” Ia wa, olelo
mai o Hawewe: “Mai lele oe ma
ka aoao hema, o pa auanei ka
lama ia oe, halulu, o ia halulu a
lohe ko kaikuaana i lalo, loaa ole
ka wai ola a Kane ia oe. Nolaila,
maanei oe e lele ai, alaila, loaa
ia oe ka wai ola a Kane.” O keia
mau kanaka elua, he mau
kupunakane no Aukelenuiaiku,
ma ka aoao o kona
makuawahine, o Kapapaiakea.
O ka nui a me ka loihi o ka
manawa o Aukelenuiaiku i lele
ai, mai ke kanaka mua a keia
kanaka hope elua mahina o ka
lele ana.
A haalele o Aukelenaiaiku i ke
kamailio ana me Hawewe, lele
hou mai la o Aukelenuiaiku a
kau i luna o Kanenaenae. A pau
ka Aukelenuiaiku olelo ana nona
a me kona mau makua, komo
aku la ia olelo ma ko
was connected to Aukelenuiaiku,
and he therefore fell on him and
wept. At the end of the weeping
he asked Aukelenuiaiku: “What
has brought my lord here?”
Aukelenuiaiku answered: “I have
come for the water of everlasting
life of Kane, for my nephew and
brothers.” Kanenaenae then
asked: “Is it not all gone?” “No, it
is not all gone.” “Yes, you shall
have it. Look straight at my
middle.” 35 While Aukelenuiaiku
was looking, Kanenaenae said:
“You must not fly on this side, for
you will strike the loulu palm
leaves and the sound will travel
to your cousin there below, and
the water of life of Kane will be
closed and you will not be able
to get it. You must therefore fly
along this way. In this flight
downward you will meet your
grandfather who will direct you
how to get to this water of life.”
[90]
After receiving these
instructions, Aukelenuiaiku
continued on his flight and flew
along until he lit on Kuemanu.
After the several questions had
been asked and the usual
Kanenaenae pepeiao, maopopo
ua pili loa o Aukelenuiaiku ia ia.
Alaila, uwe iho la ia ia
Aukelenuiaiku; a pau ka uwe
ana, ninau aku la ia: “Heaha ka
huakai a kuu haku o ka hiki ana
mai?” I aku o Aukelenuiaiku: “I
kii mai au i ka wai ola loa a
Kane, no kuu keiki a me o’u
kaikuaana.” Ninau mai o
Kanenaenae: “Ua pau loa nae
paha?” “Aole i pau loa.” “Ae, ua
loaa; nana ia i kuu piko i pololei.”
Ia Aukelenuiaiku e nana ana, i
mai la kela: “Mai lele auanei oe
ma keia aoao la, o pa oe i ka
loulu, halulu. O ia halulu a lohe
ko kaikuaana i lalo, paa ka wai
ola a Kane, aole e loaa mai ia
oe, nolaila, maanei oe e lele ai.
Ma keia lele ana au a hiki oe i
lalo i ko kupunakane, a nana oe
e olelo mai, alaila, loaa ka wai
ola ia oe.” [91]
Mahope o keia olelo ana a laua,
lele mai la o Aukelenuiaiku a kau
ana i luna o Kuemanu. Olelo iho
o Aukelenuiaiku: “Nau no ke
kupu owau.” Ninau mai kela:
“Na’u na wai?” “O ke keiki au a
answers given, Aukelenuiaiku
said: “I am your own offspring.”
The guard then asked: “Mine by
whom?” “I am the child of
Kapapaiakea and Iku.” When
Kuemanu heard this he wept
over Aukelenuiaiku and then
asked: “Are you the grandson of
Kapoino and Kamooinanea?”
Aukelenuiaiku assented, saying:
“Yes, I am their grandchild.”
Kuemanu then asked: “What
thing of such importance is it that
has brought you here?”
Aukelenuiaiku replied: “I have
come in search of the water of
everlasting life of Kane, for my
nephew and brothers.” “Yes, you
shall get it. You must go down to
your grandaunt, who is down
there at the base of the cliff,
Luahinekaikapu, who is blind.
When you come to her, you will
find her roasting bananas, four in
number. When she reaches out
to take one up, you also reach
and take one; do this until the
last ones are taken. Then when
she reaches out for the others
and fails to find them and asks,
‘What mischievous fellow is this
that has come?’ and receives no
reply, she will take up the ashes
Kapapaiakea laua o Iku.” A lohe
o Kuemanu i keia mau olelo,
uwe iho la ia ia Aukelenuiaiku, a
ninau ae la: “O ka moopuna no
oe a Kapoino laua o
Kamooinanea?” “Ae,” aku o
Aukelenuiaiku, “ae, owau no ka
laua moopuna.” Alaila, ninau mai
la o Kuemanu: “Heaha kau
huakai nui o ka hiki ana mai?” I
aku o Aukelenuiaiku: “I hele mai
au e imi i ka wai ola loa a Kane,
no kuu keiki a me o’u
kaikuaana.” “Ae, ua loaa; o iho i
lalo i ko kupunawahine, aia i lalo
kahi i noho ai i ke kumu o ka
pali, oia o Luahinekaikapu, ua
makapo nae. A hiki oe, e pulehu
maia ana kela, hookahi kauna
maia, i lalau auanei kela
hookahi, lalau oe hookahi, pela a
pau na maia eha. Alaila, nana ia
e lalau iho a nele, olelo iho,
penei: ‘Nohea la hoi keia kalohe
i hiki mai nei?’ Alaila, lalau kela i
ka lehu a lu ma ka aoao akau,
holo oe ma ka aoao hema e ku
ai, a pau ia, lu hou kela ma ka
aoao hema, holo oe ma ka aoao
akau e ku ai. Mahope o laila,
nana aku oe i ka lalau i ka lehu a
honi i ka ihu, a i kihe kela ma
keia nana ana, ua honi i ka