Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Titicaca Basin Archaeolinguistics: Uru, Pukina and Aymara AD 750-1450

Author(s): David L. Browman


Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 2, Communication and Language (Oct., 1994), pp. 235-
251
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124854 .
Accessed: 28/02/2011 09:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics:
Uru, Pukina and Aymara AD 750-
1450

David L. Browman

Introduction

The ancient city of Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco) was the capital of a polity whose prestige
dominated the Central Andes during the latter part of the first millennium AD. Although
the Aymara inhabit the area today, differing models have been proposed for the language
of Tiwanaku. Based on the language groups reported by the Spanish conquistadores when
they arrived in the basin in the early sixteenth century, some reconstructions suggest the
Tiwanaku folk were Uru, or Pukina, instead of Aymara speakers (in contrast to Quechua,
the language of the Inka empire). Some Andeanists see Uru and Pukina as identical;
others see them as quite separate languages.
These hypotheses are further complicated by differing views of when (and from where)
the Aymara arrived. If they can be shown to be recent arrivals, Tiwanaku would have been
built by other groups. One scenario argues that Aymara folk were recent migrants into the
basin from the north, only appearing about AD 1200, probably from the Mantaro River
valley area of central Peru. A second theory is based on an origin legend from one Aymara
subgroup, which implied that the Aymara were recent migrants, arriving at roughly
AD 1200 from Coquimbo on the central Chilean coast to the south. A third postulates that
the Aymara are residents of long duration, being the founders of the Tiwanaku culture and
possibly its antecedents. Another approach is a model which proposes a multilingual
complex, with Quechua as the language of bureaucracy and administration, Aymara as the
language of trade, Pukina as the language of the state religion and Uru as the language of
the landless lower classes.
Material culture and language do not always co-occur. However, the major migrations
that are inherent in the first two of these models will leave evidence in the archaeological
record. Thus archaeology can be employed at least to confirm or disconfirm the migration
models. The quality and control of regional archaeological evidence is variable, but
sufficient to help us begin to clear up this conflicting set of paradigms for the Aymara and
Tiwanaku.
The organization of this paper begins with a discussion of Uru and Pukina: who are
they? The documentary basis of each model is next detailed, followed by a synopsis of the

World Archaeology Volume 26 No. 2 Communication and Language


? Routledge 1994 0043-8243/94/2602/235
236 David L. Browman

relevant archaeological data that might be employed to illuminate the arguments


reviewed, and finally an alternative model is proposed.

Uru vs. Pukina

There is general agreement that the Aymara were a large and significant ethnic and
language group in southern Peru, northern Chile and western Bolivia at the time of the
Inka conquest ca. AD 1450 and the later Spanish conquest ca. AD1535. The earliest historic
documents, however, also refer to other groups such as the Uru, Pukina, Chipaya,
Urukilla, Changos and Camanchaca. Theoretical linguistic models (Nichols 1992: 275)
suggest that low latitudes, coastal areas and mountains all inherently favor small-scale
economies, and thus linguistic diversity, and that it is only later, with the rise of complex
society and large-scale economic factors, that genetic diversity of languages is reduced. As
the area in question is at low latitude, and involves the Pacific coast and the Andean
mountains, are these other language groups remnants of that earlier diversity? Or are they
remains of earlier large economic and political clusters, overrun first by the Aymara and
later by the Quechua and then Spanish? If the Uru, Pukina, Chipaya, Urukilla, Changos
and Camanchaca all proved to be of a single language family, and perhaps even local
alternative names for the same language, the latter hypothesis would be supported; if,
however, they prove to be distinct and discrete, then the former hypothesis is supported
(and, moreover, none would be a particularly propitious candidate for the people of
Tiwanaku).
One of the arguments supporting the reconstruction of a major language/ethnic group in
addition to Aymara and Quechua is the frequent statement that there were three imperial
general languages spoken in the region at the time of the Spanish conquest: Quechua,
Aymara and Pukina. Proponents of this thesis most frequently base their arguments on
one or more of the following data: a 1591 statement from the Cuzco synod indicating
priests should be trained in the three languages to minister to all the residents of that
bishopric, a 1631 statement from the Arequipa synod with similar exhortations, an early
seventeenth-century trilingual inscription from the seminary entry at Andahuaylillas in the
Cuzco bishopric, and a 1600 statement listing Quechua, Aymara, Pukina and Urukilla as
necessary languages for priests in the Charcas bishopric.
This evidence seems powerful. However, as will be subsequently further elaborated, it
was typical in this part of the Andes to find members of communities widely dispersed;
thus, postulating geographically continuous speech communities without specific evidence
is dubious. Mannheim (1991: 47) has pointed out that the evidence for Pukina being
spoken must be interpreted particularly cautiously, using as his prime example the
gateway inscription at Andahuaylillas, where abundant colonial records demonstrate that
only Quechua was spoken and that the trilingual phrase was simply an artefact of Jesuit
policy for training priests during 1620-1635. Also, the 1591 statement from Cuzco refers
specifically to the portion of the Colla area north east of Lake Titicaca, where there is
documentation of a significant Pukina population, rather than to the bishopric in general.
A 1594 letter by a Jesuit priest refers to a maximum of forty to fifty villages where Pukina is
spoken in all of Cuzco, Arequipa, Arica and other places (Bouysse-Cassagne 1992a: 132).
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 237

The best case might come from Torero's 1965 PhD dissertation at the Sorbonne, 'La
Puquina: La Troisieme Langue General du Perou'. This document, however, is not
available, having been missing from the library at the University of Paris since at least 1972
(Bouysse-Cassagne 1992a: 133). Torero has made comments on Pukina in more recent
publications, as discussed below.
The mention of Urukilla adds a further complicating factor. In post-1600 documents,
Urukilla seems to be limited to a political group, but, in pre-1600 documents, Uru and
Urukilla are often employed interchangeably, leading some scholars to propose that
Urukilla was the language of the Uru (Bouysse-Cassagne 1987:126). The people of the
politically defined Aullagas y Urukillas sefiorio are recorded as speaking two languages:
Aymara and Uru/Urukilla (Abercrombie 1986; Bouysse-Cassagne 1987). Is Uru the same
as Urukilla? The 1570s visita (census) by Toledo referred to the Uru group of the Lupaca
area interchangeably as the 'Uruquillas de Huchusuma' and the 'Uros de Huchusuma'
(Cook 1975: 91, 80). Huchusuma or Ochosuma is an alternative name for the Uru; thus
both Uru and Urukilla designations are employed by Toledo to refer to the Uru. In
addition, the Toledo visita referred to 790 'Aullagas y Uruquillas' taxpayers as distinct
from 581 'Uros' on the tax rolls of the Repartimiento of Aullagas y Urukillas (Cook
1975: 5). On this basis, when it is possible from the context, it seems preferable to limit
Urukilla only to the ethnic members of the Aullagas y Urukillas federation.
The noted seventeenth-century chronicler Calancha indicated that Uru was not a
homogeneous group, but included various peoples and dialects (Camacho 1943: 18), that
is, it was a catchall 'other' category employed by the Spanish. Sometimes Uru referred to
an ethnic group, other times to a tax category, a social class (for a vassal or landless
commoner), an occupation (as fisherfolk or hunters) and sometimes just any non-Aymara
or non-Quechua speaker (Abercrombie 1986: 299; Bouysse-Cassagne 1987: 123; Julien
1978: 49). Just what was meant in any particular usage is often not clear. In this paper, Uru
is employed as the language term, and Urukilla is limited to the people of the Aullagas y
Urukillas federation.
If Uru and Pukina could be shown to be alternative names for the same linguistic group,
perhaps we could use the scattered references as relicts of a previous 'civilization' (the
Pukina civilization of Torero and Espinoza Soriano). Most comparative linguistic studies
before 1965 grouped Uru (or Uru-Chipaya) and Pukina as two stocks of the larger Arawak
family. In 1964, Olson proposed linkages between Mayan and Uru-Chipaya; as Mayan is a
member of the Penutian family, this shifted Uru-Chipaya and Pukina to Penutian. Other
linguists, such as Hamp (1967), Stark (1973), Voegelin and Voegelin (1965) and Pottier
(1983), continued this grouping. But subsequent work has failed to confirm any Mayan
linkages, and most recent linguistic studies once again affiliate Uru-Chipaya and Pukina
with Arawak. Greenberg (1987: 83) suggested an Uru subfamily of Arawak composed of
Callawaya, Caranga, Chipaya, Pukina and Uru. Callawaya is an issue which is too complex
to deal with here; Carangas is an Aymara-speaking province which includes the old
'Aullagas y Urukillas' federation area, so apparently the term 'Caranga' is being employed
by Greenberg to represent Urukilla.
It would thus seem, on the basis of these sources, that there is some general agreement
on linkages between Uru-Chipaya and Pukina. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Kaufman (1990: 44) states that the evidence for connecting Uru-Chipaya with anything
238 David L. Browman

else is 'extremely weak', and the grouping of Pukina with Uru-Chipaya 'seems to be based
on taking someone's incorrect assertion that they are the same language at face value. In
fact they are quite dissimilar.' Galdos Rodriquez, who has shown some Pukina presence in
coastal valleys via toponym studies, notes that it is 'clearly established' that Pukina and
Uru were completely different languages and distinct ethnic groups (1982: 25). Torero,
one of the strongest advocates of the Pukina civilization hypothesis, similarly notes that
there is no direct genetic relationship between Pukina and Uru (1987: 397), and that they
have more similarities to Proto-Arawak than they do to each other (1992: 182).
On the south coast of Peru and north coast of Chile, fishing groups, called Changos,
Pro-Anches and Camanchacas, have sometimes been called 'coastal' Uru or Pukina. In an
early study, Camacho (1943:26) demonstrated that the use of 'Uru' was only an
occupational term, designating fisherfolk, but thought perhaps the Changos could be
Pukina speakers. Later researchers have demonstrated that the Changos and Camanchaca
spoke neither Uru nor Pukina, that the reference of Uru was merely to people of a similar
subsistence system and 'same miserable existence' (Bittmann 1979: 338).
In spite of many conflicting claims, after sifting through the evidence, the following
statements seem to be accurate: first - Uru and Pukina are not the same or alternative
names for a common group, although they may ultimately both derive from Arawak.
Second - the distribution of Pukina and Uru speakers is very scattered, and may represent
sixteenth-century economic and political factors as much as any pre-Inka relict situation.
Third - Uru was employed as a term to refer to a variety of situations, including ethnicity,
language, social status, tax category, occupation and lifestyle.
Although the hypothesis of a single Uru-Pukina polity pre-dating the Aymara cannot be
supported, this does not mean that there were no Pukina or Uru influences of significance.
In the altiplano, Uru presence is mainly limited to the areas south of Lake Titicaca, while
Pukina is mainly north of the lake (see Figure 1). While there is no Uru presence
demonstrable in the Pacific lowlands, Pukina presence is documented. As noted, there are
Pukina villages known in the coastal provinces of Arequipa, Moquegua and Tacna and
toponym studies (Adelaar 1987; Galdos Rodriquez 1990) suggest a wider previous
distribution of Pukina than the historic sources establish. If the Pukina villages on the coast
are politically related to the Pukina village north of Lake Titicaca, some specific material
correlates should be detectable archaeologically.

Late Peruvian invasion origin of Aymara hypothesis

The principal architect of the model of a late (ca. AD 1200) movement of Aymara from
Central Peru into the altiplano of Bolivia is Torero. Other linguists have assumed that a
fellow specialist knows more about the subject than an ethnohistorian or archaeologist, so
that, until recently, Andean linguistic models were not informed by evidence from historic
documents or archaeology. Torero wrote his 1965 PhD dissertation on Pukina, and formed
a series of ideas on how the Quechua and Aymara languages related to each other during
that research. He employed glottochronology as an absolute dating tool, and based his
models on the numbers produced. Torero (1970: 231, 243,254) suggested that the Titicaca
Basin people originally spoke Pukina, and that an expansion of Quechua south from the
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 239

UROS m
PUQUlNA ::: ;
URUQUILLA^.^

Figure1 Reconstructionof sixteenth-centurylocations of Uru, Pukina and Urukillaby Torero


(1987:342), showingthe areaof discussionandsome of the complexityof distribution.

central coast of Peru correlated with an expansion south out of Wari of the Aymara people
at AD 840-880.
By 1984 his perspective had changed somewhat. Aymara and its parent, Jaqi, were no
longer seen as imperial languages. Aymara was now more closely tied with the Nasca area
of the coast, and employed as a trade language. Jaqi or Aymara was seen as the
inter-regional language of commerce in the Central and South Andes (1984: 370). In part
this was because by 1984 Torero had conferred with a Peruvian archaeologist, Ruth Shady
Solis, and learned that his lexicostatistic linguistic dates did not correspond with the
240 David L. Browman

archaeological data. As he began to work with Uru, he modified his model slightly; new
glottochronological computations informed Torero that the split between Titicaca and
Poopo branches of Uru was at AD 200 (1990: 243); thus the area from Cuzco to Wari was
proposed as an Aymara zone, the north end of Lake Titicaca as a Pukina zone (with its center
at Pucara), and the Bolivian altiplano from Lake Titicaca south as an Uru- (or in his terms,
Urukilla-) speaking zone (1990:245), with the Aymara language distribution tied
essentially to commerce.
In his most recent work (1992), Torero produces a new lexicostatistic date of 200 BCfor the
branching of Uru. Pukina is seen as related to the Pucara culture north of the lake, and
Uru/Urukilla to the Chiripa culture at the south end of the lake, with the prestige of Chiripa
such that it led to the spread of Uru south across the altiplano, correlated with the 'Mound' or
Wankarani culture. What he ascribes to the 'cultural vigor' of Pucara subsequently led, he
asserts, to the 'Pukinization' of Tiwanaku. His model thus proposes three major cultural
shifts for the southern part of the basin: a founding population of Uru speakers; replacemeint
by Pukina speakers, apparently by 200 Bc; and replacement by Aymara speakers by
AD 1100-1200. Archaeologically then, if this model is accurate, we should detect significant
and abrupt material cultural changes that correlate to these population movements.
Other linguists and Andeanists helped popularize this model. Albo (1987), Buettner
(1983) and Cerron-Palomino (1982) adopted the idea of Aymara populations in the central
Andes being pushed south by Quechua speakers, with Albo using Torero's earlier estimate
of the spread at AD 1200, and the other two using his revised estimate, tying it to the spread of
Wari influence ca. AD 500. Espinoza (1980, 1987) has championed the idea of renaming the
Tiwanaku as the 'Pukina culture', as he sees it as a 'proven' case. Because Espinoza's studies
(1980: 156) suggest that up to 40 per cent of the toponyms in some central Andean areas
might be Aymara (whom he correlates with the Llacuaces vs. Yaros argument), a forcing of
the Aymara south late in prehistory fits his other hypotheses. Espinoza integrates some
ideas borrowed from Hardman, seeing (1987: 379) the Inka elite as Pukina-speaking
refugees from an Aymara invasion at AD 1200, with Quechua, however, as an administrative
and bureaucratic language which the Inca borrowed from the Wari empire.
Hardman (1.985)was comfortable with seeing Jaqi as the language of the Middle Horizon
Wari, as it would provide an explanation for the Kawki and JaqaruJaqi dialects surviving in
Lima Department. She argued (1985: 626) that, while the Tiwanaku people spoke Pukina,
their expansion was Aymara-related. Cuzco she sees as being trilingual: the royal language
being Pukina, the language of the initial spread of Cuzco out into the Andes being the trade
language Aymara, and Quechua coming to Cuzco only with the conquest of Pachacamac by
the Incas. This allows her to propose two expansions of Aymara: one 1500-1000 years ago,
essentially a commercial expansion relating to Wari, and a second at ca. AD 1440-1460, with
the first expansion of the Inca empire. While a provoking model, archaeological evidence
does not support it; equally Torero and other experts on Quechua do not support the Inca
language argument. Hardman's and Espinoza's modifications of Torero yield somewhat
different hypotheses, but in general still follow the scenario of Pukina at AD 500, replaced
physically by an invasion of Aymara about AD 1000 or later, and finally by a Quechua/Inka
invasion ca. AD 1450. Such invasions will leave evidence in the material culture record.
An interesting side-bar to Torero's linguistic model is its treatment of the Wari empire.
Rationalizing the concept of Wari empire with his model led to inherent conflicts. To get
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 241

around this problem Torero proposed Aymara/Jaqi as an inter-regional trade language.


His archaeological collaborator, Shady Solis (1983), developed an alternative model of the
Wari empire being not an imperial political entity but rather a series of loosely associated
'emporiums' or market-places. Although the archaeologists who provided commentary
for that article (and a later 1988 version) did not accept the 'emporium' proposal as
consistent with the archaeological data, the linguists have found it a very handy mechanism
to employ to explain the coexistence of a whole set of small language groups.

Chilean origin hypothesis

The most articulate proponent of the Chilean origin idea has been Bouysse-Cassagne,
although for obvious reasons a number of Chilean archaeologists have repeated it.
Bouysse-Cassagne began her research from the southern Bolivian altiplano, looking
north, just as Torero had started out from central Peru looking south. In attempting to
untangle the complicated skein of diverse references to Uru/Urukilla, Pukina, Aymara
and Quechua languages spoken in the Charcas federation area, she found that earlier
assumptions of Uru and Pukina being the same language were not supported by her data
(1975: 312). A story recounted by Pedro Cieza de Leon in his 1544 'Segunda parte de la
cronica del Peru' referred to Coquimbo in northern coastal Chile as the place of origin for
the Aymara Lupaqa group. Basing her argument on this origin myth, Bouysse-Cassagne
(1987) proposed several sequential waves of Aymara peoples moving from south-to-north,
and explicitly noted that this model was diametrically opposed to the north-to-south
hypothesis of Torero. Lucy Briggs, who worked with differentiating dialects of Aymara in
the altiplano for her PhD, reported that none of her data supported Torero's model of
north-to-south movement (1985:570), a fact which seemed to lend support to the
south-to-north model.
Bouysse-Cassagne (1992b:488) was troubled by the fact that historically only an
Arawak language is documented for the Coquimbo area. Much to her credit, she has
recently reviewed the archaeological evidence provided by Julien (1978) and Albarracin-
Jordan and Mathews (1990), noted that it shows no rupture between the ceramics of the
Tiwanaku state of AD500-1000 and the subsequent Late Prehistoric Aymara groups of
AD1000-1450, and has abandoned her idea of an Ayrriarainvasion from the south during
the Late Prehistoric period.

Long Bolivian stability hypothesis

The archaeologists working on the Bolivian side of Lake Titicaca have generally supported
the idea of Aymara-speaking people being the founders of Tiwanaku, and living in the area
for a considerable period of time (two millennia or more). Thus, while the linguists and
ethnohistorians had opted for invasion hypotheses, the archaeologists have favored a
home-grown model. Uhle (1922:77) saw a pan-Andean Tiwanaku empire of Aymara
speakers. Posnansky, who researched Tiwanaku for forty years, believed the major
construction epoch to be by Aymara speakers (1938: 17). Ponce Sangines, who has worked
242 David L. Browman

on the site since 1948, also sees the Tiwanaku population as Aymara speakers, based on
both ceramic and toponym evidence (1976: 59). Using similar evidence, I have made the
same argument since 1970. Albarracin-Jordan and Mathews (1990), who have conducted
the most complete survey of the area, recording more than 1,000 sites, define a ceramic
chronology that develops without interruption from Tiwanaku to Inka arrival. However,
with the exception of Uhle, the focus of the archaeologists supporting indigenous develop-
ment has been fairly narrow - the site of Tiwanaku and its immediate hinterlands for a
radius of perhaps 100 miles. Thus we must investigate the patterns in a broader perspec-
tive, to see if the Tiwanaku heartland zone is a microcosm of the larger basin or whether a
broader perspective might reflect evidence for the invasion hypotheses. It should be noted
that the local-development supporters have not ignored the other evidence. Uhle
(1922: 95) saw Aymara speakers being replaced on the coast in late prehistoric times by
'Chincha-Atacamefias' (groups said to speak Pukina, Camanchaca, Kunza or other lan-
guages), and Posnansky (1938: 17) accommodated the presence of other groups by pro-
posing a much earlier (first millennium Be) invasion of Aymara into the basin displacing
the Arawak speakers (Pukina and Uru).

Evaluating the hypotheses

The selection of the types of archaeological data that are appropriate to test or falsify any
of these hypotheses depends on the sensitivity of the artefact class to demographic shifts or
the correlation with specific ethnic groups. Stanish (1992; Aldenderfer and Stanish 1993)
has argued with reason that household architecture, being fixed in the landscape, is a
better marker of ethnicity than portable objects such as ceramics. Ceramics are too
mobile, being frequently traded, exchanged or heirloomed, and thus not good measures of
ethnicity, he argues. Mortuary goods frequently contain exotic, non-local items. Thus
floor plans of domestic structures were seen as a better measure of ethnicity.
For the Moquegua valley studies, domestic architecture did appear to be a useful
indicator of ethnicity. The only discordant note in Aldenderfer and Stanish's study (1993)
was the report by Bermann that, for the Luqurmata site, there were epochs where both
round and rectangular structures were simultaneously employed for domestic dwellings.
However, this site was not in the Moquegua area but on the south end of Lake Titicaca.
Gisbert (1988: 52) noted that Aymara had both circular and rectangular houses, depend-
ing on the local region. This parallels my own evidence from the La Paz department area
south of Lake Titicaca. Either the Titicaca basin people had less rigorous mental templates
of appropriate dwelling modes than the Moquegua area, or these mixtures of structures
represent the 'salpicada' model of multi-ethnic settlements discussed later in this paper.
If domestic architecture is not a clear indicator of ethnicity in the Titicaca basin, we need
to identify other possible material identifiers. Perishable artefacts, such as cap types,
breechcloth and shirt types, and basketry (Clark 1993; Galdo Pagaza 1981), appear to be
sensitive measures of ethnicity, but by their very nature are often not preserved. Thus, in
spite of the reservations Stanish and his colleagues express regarding ceramics as appropri-
ate indicators of ethnicity, the bulk of the archaeological information available for evaluat-
ing these various hypotheses is ceramic data.
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 243

INTERMEDIO Y DESARROLLOS REGIONALES ZONA ANDINA


BOLIVIA

Intermedio

(D Tiwanaku

Desarrottos Reqionales

O(Motlo- Iskanwaya
( Omasuyos
) Anantoko
? Intersalar
( Mallku
( Tarija

A Asentamiento tipo

Escala
oI _
100 200km

I- I I ? -1 -.- ? 1 ? - - -- ?~~-?- ?
Figure2 Mapshowingsome of the late prehistoricsefioriosin the Bolivianaltiplanoandthe earlier
TiwanakuAymaraspread(Arellano1992:313, Figure4).
244 David L. Browman

Space will not permit detailed review of the ceramic data, but we can look at the overall
patterns in three general zones: the southern altiplano of Bolivia and the area south of
Lake Titicaca; the areas north of Lake Titicaca, and the Pacific coastal areas to the west of
the highland basin, where various Uru and Pukina linkages have been suggested.

Southern area (Aymara)


Work in recent years has identified a series of smaller regional clusters, correlated with the
political entities known as 'sefiorios', sometimes integrated into larger federations, for the
altiplano south of Lake Titicaca (Figure 2). All exhibit the above ground burial
architecture known as 'chullpas', dated as first appearing sometime between AD 900-1100.
Ceramic vessel shapes and designs are extremely similar; bichrome designs are of a dark
color on a lighter background (ranging from black/brown/purple/deep red on buff to black
on red). In Oruro and Potosi to the south we have the Killaka or Intersalar (Lecoq 1991),
Hedionda (Barfield 1961), Mallku (Arellano 1992; Arellano and Berberian 1981),
Huruquilla and Yura (Fernandez 1978; Ibarra Grasso and Querejazu Lewis 1986) groups.
In La Paz, the complexes known as Chullpa (Ryden 1947), Anantoko (Arellano and Kuljis
1986) and Pacajes (Portugal 1988; Albarracin-Jordan and Mathews 1990) appear to be
different aspects of the historic Pacajes federation; the provisional Juli complex of
southern Puno department (Stanish 1993 et al.) also appears closely linked.
These highland groups all extended their economic spheres of influence west down into
lower mid-valley locations where it was possible to grow maize. In the areas from San
Pedro de Atacama and the Rio Loa northward, this interaction is intense enough that
researchers now often speak of the Toconce-Mallku, Taltape-Killaka or Taltape-
Huruquilla sefiorios, linking the Chilean and Bolivian complexes. In north Chile, in zones
such as the Azapa and Camarones valleys, Rivera (1991: 36) reports that, while Arica
complexes make up 65-85 per cent of the late assemblages on the coast, in mid-valley the
Bolivian altiplano styles make up 70-90 per cent of the materials.
Mapping of genetic markers appears to support a fairly long period of time of
interconnection. Principal component maps by Salzano and Callegari-Jacques (1988:198)
and Suarez et al. (1985: 225) exhibit similar trait clustering which links the altiplano and
coastal areas (see Figure 3).

Northeast area
At the time of the Spanish conquest, there was a major Colla kingdom at the north end of
the lake, which included a significant Pukina minority. The term 'Pukina' was also
employed to refer to an ethnic cluster at the confluence of the Rio Tambo in Arequipa as
well as peoples in some other coastal villages. In addition, some researchers have
speculated that the Kallawaya group east of the lake likewise spoke Pukina. The historic
documents also refer to Aymara populations intrusive into these same areas; for example
Saignes (1985: 258) lists mitmaqkuna from Canas, Canchis, Pacajes, Taraco and Charcas
in the Iskanwaya-Mollo area east of the lake.
Thus in this northern area we have Aymara and Pukina speakers both as altiplano
groups and as groups in adjacent lowland zones. It would be very useful if we could identify
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 245

t0

-
f,/ ^-~ y~ ~Figure 3 Principal com-
ponents analysis of genetic
variables, showing a focus
j- ( around the Lake Titicaca
?r22 ) area (41 on the map), by
Salzano and Callegari-
<,^^a~~~~~~ ~Jacques (1988:198, Figure
9.9)

any specific ceramic decorative type or vessel shape that is unique to one of these groups.
At this point, no clear distinctions exist. Hyslop (1976: 107) saw the ceramic styles from the
north-west lake zone (Allita Amaya, Sillustani, Collau) as similar enough to the styles
from the east side (Mollo) and the south side (Chullpa, Pacajes) to argue that it was most
useful simply to see them all as a generic late prehistoric 'altiplano ware'. While there are
some broad similarities, there are very discrete differences. Bolivian archaeologists see
tricolor Mollo-Iskanwaya ware, with its additional use of plastic decorations, as distinctly
different from Pacajes, Intersalar and Mallku bichrome wares (Arellano 1992: 317), and
more similar to Allita Amaya, Killke, Churajon and Maitas (Portugal 1984: 117; Huidobro
1985: 15).
The pattern of interaction, derived from ceramics, is significantly different between this
north basin area and the south basin area. In the south basin, as we have seen, altiplano
groups were so well represented in neighboring Chile regions that we have linked
Bolivian-Chilean complexes such as Killaka-Taltape and Mallku-Toconce. In the north
basin, similarities are more trait specific. Some tricolor-polychrome decoration themes are
246 David L. Browman

shared by specific styles (such as Mollo-Iskanwaya to the east, on the edge of the jungle,
Allita Amaya in the altiplano and Churajon and Maitas on the Pacific coast). The
bootshaped pot (jarabota) is an elusive but intriguing possible ethnic marker. These
jarabotas are diagnostic of some of the coastal complexes such as Estuquifia, and found
broadly in Estuquifia, Churajon, Chiribaya and San Miguel in similar contexts, but are
basically unknown in the altiplano basin around Lake Titicaca (Lozada 1987:72; Stanish
1992:157). On the other hand, they are a rare type which does show up in the maize-
growing areas in the Mollo-Iskanwaya area (Arellano 1975; Ryden 1957).

Arica-Tacna-Moquegua pattern
In the lower mid-valley areas directly west of the Titicaca basin, there is abundant
evidence of Tiwanaku colonization; historically these areas still had significant remnant
Aymara populations, to be expected if the equation of Tiwanaku with Aymara-speaking
populations is correct. However, there are also ethnohistorically reported occurrences of
Pukina speakers, found in areas where Gentilar, Churajon and Chiribaya ceramics are
well known, leading to suggestions of equation of these latter ceramics with Pukina
speakers (Bernedo Malaga 1949:115; Ghersi 1956:92; Galdos Rodriquez 1990:188).
Toponym studies, which identify the endings huaya, waya, baya, paya, baha, laque, laca
and coa as Pukina (Adelaar 1987: 373; Galdos Rodriquez 1990: 206), also suggest Pukina
occupations of the Moquegua and Tacna areas.
Complexes based on local development need to be segregated from North Chilean and
Titicaca basin influences. Estuquifia, Churajon and Chiribaya materials seem to be
limited to Arequipa, Moquegua and Tacna on the Peruvian coastal and valley areas,
while Maitas, San Miguel and Gentilar are significant North Chilean Arica/Tarapaca
area complexes. In the North Chilean area near Arica, and in Tacna, the late prehistoric
altiplano material cultural influences, in addition to chullpas, are ceramics of the Saxa-
mar and Chilpe styles, derived from the Pacajes (and possible Carangas) areas of the
adjacent Bolivian altiplano (Browman 1986, in press). In Arequipa and Moquegua,
however, the altiplano ceramics generally link to the north end of the basin (Stanish
1992), particularly the Sillustani style of the Colla (the group which had a significant
Pukina minority in AD 1532).
The Churajon, Chiribaya, Estuquifia complexes seem to be the most promising to
pursue in the question of identification of possible Pukina speakers via material culture
traits. In terms of tricolor decoration motifs, similarities have been repeatedly mentioned
between Churajon and Chiribaya of far south coast Peru, Maitas and Gentilar of North
Chile, Allita Amaya of the Colla area of the north Titicaca basin and possibly the
Mollo-Iskanwaya of eastern Andean slopes. Hyslop (1976:117) argues that the decor-
ated Allita Amaya and Mollo wares are limited only to funerary contexts, and Clark
(1993: 314) noted that Gentilar showed up principally as burial ware in the Moquegua
region. This is the dilemma that Stanish warned of: can we risk any surmises on ethnic
affiliation based on exotic wares that show up only in special burial contexts? Plainware
jarabota pots, thought associated with maize preparation, are particularly common in
residential contexts in Chiribaya, Churajon and Estuquina, and also found in low num-
bers in Mollo as well as San Miguel complexes, but are essentially absent in Titicaca
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 247

basin ceramic complexes. While it is appealing to suggest a 'jarabota = Pukina' linkage,


there are a great many issues that need to be resolved first.

Salpicada model

The tendency has been to treat the prehistoric altiplano groups as insular homogeneous
and monolithic polities, even though that is not the case in the historic period. The
florescence of several centers around Lake Titicaca after the withdrawal of Tiwanaku
influence is most often credited to exogenous influence, usually new peoples, rather than
consideration being given to internal causes, such as the ability of local elites to retain the
resources or tribute previously directed to the core (Tiwanaku) for their own local-
development purposes.
Recent ethnographic studies in the immediate Tiwanaku region (Carter and Albo
1988: 451) detail continuing organizational features that result in a dispersion of discrete
Aymara communities over the landscape in a pattern termed 'salpicada' (spattered or
splashed). Further south in the altiplano, Abercrombie (1986), Bouysse-Cassagne (1975,
1987, 1992a) and Rasnake (1982) found the same pattern true in the ethnohistoric
documents of the Aymara federations of the Oruro and Potosi areas. Galdos Rodriquez
(1985) recounts similar patterns for the Colla area in Puno. This leaves us with multi-ethnic
federations, and the same problems as Mesoamericanists have working with the Toltec
polities, such as: is it possible to separate out material culture attributes specific to each
ethnic group in the federation? or, is the difference between stylistic patterns simply one of
different percentages or dominance of ethnic groups, or one of geographic space?
The 'salpicada' model is clearly the appropriate model for the Uru and Pukina
interactions with their Aymara neighbors in the Titicaca basin in Inca and historic periods.
It has historic roots in earlier periods, but a whole new set of questions will be required for
us to detect and identify it archaeologically.
For the Mollo/Colla/Moquegua area, items such as the boot-shaped pots may prove to
be the sort of evidence we need, and perhaps the varying distribution of chullpa burial
types may be a similar data set. Plainly we need to stop reifying the archaeological data into
insular polities, and to begin to deal with appropriate methodologies to identify
components of multi-ethnic federations.

Final remarks

Review of linguistic, ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence indicates little or no


support for the hypotheses of prehistorically recent (after AD 750) movement of Aymara
north into the Titicaca basin from Coquimbo or south from Wari. Evidence points rather
to at least a millennium of Aymara dominance of the Titicaca basin and Bolivian altiplano
prior to the arrival of the Inka. Existing data indicate that Tiwanaku was an Aymara-
speaking polity. The Bolivian political model of organization followed a 'salpicada' style,
resulting in multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic communities. Thus Uru and Pukina speakers
were also integrated into large Aymara-led polities in the late prehistoric period. Whether
248 David L. Browman

there was a sequence of monolingual Uru speakers, replaced by monolingual Pukina


speakers, replaced by Aymara speakers, or whether there were three contemporaneous
groups of Aymara, Uru and Pukina, where the Aymara gradually secured economic and
political dominance, with the resultant Aymarization of the less prestigious coexisting
ethnic groups cannot be answered unambiguously. The linguistic models of Nichols and
the historic salpicada political economy of the Aymara appear to support the latter
scenario.

1.ii .94 Department of Anthropology


Campus Box 1114
Washington University
1 Brookings Drive,
St Louis, Missouri 63130
USA

References

Abercrombie,T. 1986.ThePoliticsof Sacrifice:An AymaraCosmologyin Action.PhD dissertation,


Anthropology,Universityof Chicago.
Adelaar,W. 1987.Commentaryon Torero.RevistaAndina, 10:373-5.
Albarracin-Jordan, prehispanicosdel vallede Tiwanaku.La
J. andMathews,J. 1990.Asentamientos
Paz:ProduccionesCima.
Albo, X. 1987.El sinuosocaminode la identidadAymara.BoletindelInstitutode EstudiosAymaras,
Series2, 25:4-39.
Aldenderfer,M. andStanish,C. 1993.Domesticarchitecture,householdarchaeology,andthe past
in the south-centralAndes. In Domestic Architecture,Ethnicity,and Complementarityin the
South-Central Andes (ed. M. Aldenderfer).IowaCity:Universityof IowaPress,pp. 1-12.
Arellano, J. 1975. La ceramica de las tumbas de Iskanwaya. La Paz: Instituto Nacional de
Arqueologia.
Arellano, J. 1992. El desarrollo cultural prehispanico en el altiplano y valles interandinos de Bolivia.
In PrehistoriaSudamericana(ed. B. Meggers).Washington,DC: Taraxacum,pp. 309-25.
Arellano,J. andBerberian,E. 1981.Mallku:el sefioriopost-Tiwanakudel altiplanosurde Bolivia.
Bulletinde l'InstitutFrancesd'EtudesAndines,10(1/2):51-84.
Arellano,J. andKuljis,D. 1986.Antecedentespreliminaresde las investigacionesarqueologicasen
la zona circumtitikaka de Bolivia. Prehistoricas,1(1):9-28.
Barfield, L. 1961. Recent discoveriesin the Atacamadesert and the Bolivianaltiplano.American
Antiquity,27(1):93-100.
Bernedo Malaga, L. 1949. La culturapuquina o prehistoriade la provincia de Arequipa.Lima:
Ministeriode EducacionPublica.
Bittmann,B. 1979.Cobijay alrededoresen la epocacolonial.Actasdel VIICongresodeArqueologia
de Chile,2: 327-56.
Bouysse-Cassagne, T. 1975. Pertenencia etnica, status economico y lenguas en Charcas a fines del
sigle XVI. In Tasade la VisitaGeneralde Franciscode Toledo(ed. N. Cook). Lima:Universidad
MajorNacionalde SanMarcos,pp. 312-28.
Bouysse-Cassagne,T. 1987.La IdentidadAymara.La Paz:Hisbol.
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 249

Bouysse-Cassagne, T. 1992a. Le Lac Titicaca: histoire perdue d'une mer interieure. Bulletin de
l'Institut Frances d'Etudes Andines, 21(1): 89-159.
Bouysse-Cassagne, T. 1992b. Past and present human populations. In Lake Titicaca:A Synthesis of
Limnological Knowledge (eds C. Dejoux and A. Iltis). Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 473-94.
Briggs, L. 1985. A critical survey of the literature on the Aymara language. In South American
Indian Languages (eds H. E. Manelis Klein and L. R. Stark). University of Texas Press,
pp.595-616.
Browman, D. 1986. Prehispanic Aymara expansion, the southern altiplano, and San Pedro de
Atacama. Estudios Atacamenos, 7: 236-52.
Browman, D. in press. Political institutional factors contributing to the integration of the Tiwanaku
state. In Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies (ed. L. Manzanilla).
Buettner, T. 1983. Las Lenguas de los Andes Centrales. Madrid: Instituto de Cooperacion
Iberoamericana.
Camacho, J. 1943. Urus, Changos y Atacamas. Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica de La Paz,
66: 9-35.
Carter, W. and Albo, X. 1988. La comunidad Aymara. In Raices de America: El Mundo Aymara
(ed. X. Albo). Madrid: Alianza Editorial, pp. 451-92.
Cerron-Palomino, R. 1982. La cuestion linguistica en al Peru. In Aula Quechua (ed. R.
Cerron-Palomino). Lima: Ediciones Signo Universitario, pp. 105--23.
Clark, N. 1993. The Estuquifia Textile Tradition: Cultural Patterning in Late Prehistoric Fabrics,
Moquegua, Far Southern Peru. PhD dissertation, Anthropology, Washington University.
Cook, N. 1975. Tasa de la Visita General de Francisco de Toledo. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos.
Espinoza Soriano, W. 1980. Los fundamentos linguisticos de la etnohistoria andina y comentarios en
torno al anonimo de Charcas de 1604. Revista Espafola de Antropologia Americana, 10: 149-69.
Espinoza Soriano, W. 1987. Los Incas. Lima: Amaru Editores.
Fernandez, J. 1978. Los Chichas, los Lipes y un posible enclave de la cultura de San Pedro de
Atacama en la puna limitrofe Argentino-Boliviana. Estudios Atacamenos, 6: 19-35.
Galdo Pagaza, R. 1981. Artesanias y pequefias industrias en el area colindante con el Lago Titicaca.
In Acerca de la Historia y el Universo Aymara, Lima: Centro de Informacion Estudios y
Documentacion, pp. 77-106.
Galdos Rodriquez, G. 1982. Uros, Camanchacas, Changos, Puquinas y yungas pescadores en
Sud-Peru y Norte de Chile. Dialogo Andino, 1: 13-29.
Galdos Rodriquez, G. 1985. Interrelaciones estructurales en la Costa Sur Peruana. Dialogo Andino,
3:45-58.
Galdos Rodriquez, G. 1990. Naciones ancestrales y la conquista Incaica. In Historia General de
Arequipa (eds M. Neira et al.). Arequipa: Fundacion Bustamante de la Fuente, pp. 185-214.
Ghersi, H. 1956. Informe sobre las excavaciones en Chiribaya. Revista del Museo Nacional,
25: 89-119.
Gisbert, T. 1988. Historia de la vivienda y los asentamientos humanos en Bolivia. La Paz: Academia
Nacional de Ciencias.
Greenberg, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hamp, E. 1967. On Mayan-Chipayan. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics, 33(1): 74-6.
Hardman, M. 1985. Aymara and Quechua: languages in contact. In South American Indian
Languages (eds H. Manelis Klein and L. Stark). Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 617-43.
250 David L. Browman

Huidobro, J. 1985. Etnoarqueologia Andina. La Paz: Centro de Investigaciones Etnoarqueologicas.


Hyslop, J. 1976. An Archaeological Investigation of the Lupaca Kingdom and its Origins. PhD
dissertations, Anthropology, Columbia University.
Ibarra Grasso, D. and Querejazu Lewis, R. 1986. 30,000 anfos de prehistoria en Bolivia. La Paz:
Editorial Los Amigos del Libro.
Julien, C. 1978. Inca Administration in the Titicaca Basin as Reflected at the Provincial Capital of
Hatunqolla. PhD dissertation, Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Kaufman, T. 1990. Language history in South America. In Amazonian Linguistics (ed. D. Payne),
Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 13-74.
Lecoq, P. 1991. Sel et Archeologie en Bolivie. PhD Dissertation, Anthropology, University of Paris.
Lozada, M. 1987. La ceramica del componente mortuorio de Estuquina, Moquegua. Bachelor's
thesis, Anthropology, Universidad Catolica Santa Maria, Arequipa.
Mannheim, B. 1991. The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olson, R. 1964. Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia I. International Journal of American
Linguistics, 30(4): 313-24.
Ponce Sangines, C. 1976. La cultura nativa en Bolivia. Jornadas Peruano-Bolivianas de Estudio
Cientifico del Altiplano Boliviano y del Sur del Peru, 1: 51-101.
Portugal, M. 1984. Testimonios arqueologicos para la historia de la expansion cultural altiplanica
sobre los valles y costas del Pacifico. Arqueologia Boliviana, 1:115-25.
Portugal, M. 1988. Informe de la prospeccion a Pacajes. Arqueologia Boliviana, 3: 109-34.
Posnansky, A. 1938. Antropologia y Sociologia de las razas interandinay de las regiones adyacentes,
2nd ed. La Paz: Editorial Renacimiento.
Pottier, B. 1983. America Latine en sus lenguas indigenas. Caracas: Monte Avila Editores.
Rasnake, R. 1982. The Kurahkuna of Yura. PhD dissertation, Anthropology, Cornell University.
Rivera, M. 1991. The prehistory of Northern Chile. Journal of World Prehistory, 5(1): 1-48.
Ryden, S. 1947. Archaeological Researches in the Highlands of Bolivia. Goteborg: Elanders
Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
Ryden, S. 1957. Andean Excavations I. Stockholm: Ethnographical Museum of Sweden Monograph
Series 4.
Saignes, T. 1985. Los Andes Orientales: historia de un olvido. Travaux de l'Institut Frances de
Estudios Andinos 29.
Salzano, F. and Callegari-Jacques, S. 1988. South American Indians. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shady Solis, R. 1983. La Cultura Nieveria y la interaccion social en el mundo andino en la Epoca
Huari. Arqueologicas, 19: 5-108.
Stanish, C. 1992. Andean Political Economy. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stanish, C., de la Vega, E. and Frye, K. 1993. Domestic architecture on Lupaqa area sites in the
department of Puno. In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central
Andes (ed. M. Aldenderfer). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, pp. 83-93.
Stark, L. 1973. Glottochronology and the prehistory of Western South America. In Lexicostatistics
in Genetic Linguistics (ed. I. Dyen). Mouton: The Hague, pp. 100-7.
Suarez, B., Crouse, J. and O'Rourke, D. 1985. Genetic variation in North Amerindian populations.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 67: 217-32.
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics 251

Torero, A. 1970. Linguistica e historia de la sociedad andina. Anales Cientificos de le Universidad


Nacional Agraria, 8(3/4): 231-64.
Torero, A. 1984. El comercio lejano y la difusion del Quechua. Revista Andina, 4: 367-402.
Torero, A. 1987. Lenguas y pueblos altiplanicos en torno al siglo XVI. Revista Andina, 10: 329-405.
Torero, A. 1990. Procesos linguisticos e identificacion de dioses en los Andes centrales. Revista
Andina, 15: 237-63.
Torero, A. 1992. Acerca de la familia linguistica Uruquilla. Revista Andina, 19:171-91.
Uhle, M. 1922. Fundamentos etnicos y arqueologia de Arica y Tacna. 2nd ed. Quito: Universidad
Central.
Voegelin, C. and Voegelin, F. 1965. Languages of the World. Anthropological Linguistics 7(7),
whole volume.

Abstract

Browman, David L
Titicaca Basin archaeolinguistics: Uru, Pukina and Aymara AD 750-1450
Current linguistic and ethnohistoric models propose that the Aymara ethnic group were late
migrants into the Titicaca basin, and favor Uru or Pukina ethnic groups as the authors of the
Tiwanaku civilization, which dominated the Central Andes for roughly half a millennium
(AD500-1000). A review of linguistic, ethnohistoric and archaeological data suggests that the
Aymara have a substantial time depth in the basin (at least 2,000 years), are the people of Tiwanaku
and may have been organized in a manner termed 'salpicada', which resulted in the historic pattern
of intermingled Uru, Pukina and Aymara communities.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi