3.4.2. Qillqatani rock shelter

The rock shelter of Qillqatani is at 4400 masl along the Río Chila to the southwest of Mazo Cruz, and it is 221 km or 50.3 hours walking time, by the hiking model, across the puna from the Chivay obsidian source. Qillqatani lies on the southwestern perimeter of the Lake Titicaca Basin in the headwaters of the ríoHuenque drainage in the Department of Puno, and it is not far from the headwaters of the Osmore drainage on the western slope in the Department of Moquegua. The shelter has a strong pastoral component, but excavations revealed occupations dating back to the Middle Archaic. The shelter is also known for elaborate rock art panels. Qillqatani was excavated in 1990 by Aldenderfer in two adjacent blocks, labeled East Block and West Block (1999;2005;in prep.). The East Block measured 20 m2in horizontal extent, while the West Block measured 60 m2.

(a) Titicaca chronology,

calibrated dates

(b) Qillqatani periods,

calibrated dates

(c) Uncalibrated14C dates in r.c.y.b.p.

(d) Qillqatani provenience
of obsidian

(e) Obsidian sample

(f) Block

LH AD1476 - 1532

LH 1476 - 1532

WIII / EIII

Level D11d-507/WIII:

400±50bp(B118156)

      

LIP AD1100 - 1476

LIP 1100 - 1476

WIV - WV / EIV

  

H12C-3; WV; LIP

Chivay

West

Tiwanaku Horizon

AD400 - 1100

Tiwanaku

AD 500 - 1100

WVI - WVII / EVI

Level D9a/F7/WVIII:

2210±60bp(B93354)

E9A-5; WVII; F-3

Aconc.

West

E6A-4; WVII

Chivay

West

Late Formative

400 BCE - AD500

WVIII - WIX /
EVII - EVIII

  

D6C-8; WX; F-5; 1.45

Chivay

West

Late Formative

500 BCE - AD 400

D9A-8; WX; F-5; 1.45

Chivay

West

G13A-10; WX

Chivay

West

G13A-10; WX

Chivay

West

D6C-9; WXI; F-6; 1.6

Chivay

West

H12D-10; WXI; F-12; .75

Chivay

West

H12D-10; WXI; F-12; .75

Chivay

West

I12D-8; WXI; F-13; 2.00

Tumuku

West

Formative C

900 - 400 BCE

WXII - WXIV /
EIX - EXIV

East Block dates

Level D25d/F10/EVI:

2210±50bp(B93355)

Level F23a/F4/EXI:

2620±60bp(B93357)


West Block date

Level G7c-513/WXII:

2550±80bp(B43924)

E25B-10; EIX; F-7

Chivay

East

Middle Formative

1300 - 500 BCE

D25D-6; EIX; F-7

Chivay

East

D26B-10; EXI; F-12

Alca

East

F23B-11; EXI; F-3

Chivay

East

F24B-9; EXI; F-13

Aconc.

East

D6D-11; WXIII; F-8; .75

Chivay

West

F11A-3; WXIII; 1.65

Chivay

West

D26D-13; EXIV; F-10

Tumuku

East

D26C-13; EXIV

Chivay

East

D26C-13; EXIV

Tumuku

East

Formative B

1500 - 900 BCE

WXV - WXIX

  

D8C-12; WXVIII; F-11

Chivay

West

D8C-12; WXVIII; F-11

Chivay

West

G7D-11; WXVIII; 5.5

Chivay

West

Early Formative

2000 - 1300 BCE

Level D6/F7/WXVI:

3000±70bp(B43929)
Level D6a-522/WXIX:2940±70bp(B43925)

E9D-12; WXVIII; F-9

Chivay

West

Formative A

2000 - 1500 BCE

WXX - WXXIII

E6C-14; WXX; F-7; 1.4

Chivay

West
 

E9A-15; WXX; 2.4

Chivay

West

H13A-15; WXX; 4.6

Chivay

West

Terminal Archaic

3300 - 2000 BCE

Terminal Archaic

3300 - 2000 BCE

WXXIV

Level F9a-532/WXXIV:3660±60bp(B43926)

F28B-19; WXXIV; HF-1

Chivay

West

F28B-19; WXXIV; HF-1

Chivay

West

F28B-19; WXXIV; HF-1

Chivay

West

G9E-19; WXXIV; 98.70

Chivay

West

G9E-19; WXXIV; 98.20

Chivay

West

G10B-20; WXXIV; HF-2

Chivay

West

Late Archaic

5000 - 3300 BCE

Late Archaic

5000-3300 B.C.E

WXXV-WXXIX

Level E9d-541/WXXX:
5620±120bp(B43927)

E9D-18; WXXX

Chivay

West

Middle Archaic

7000 - 5000 BCE

Middle Archaic

7000-5000 B.C.E
 WXXX - WXXXVI

Below level WXXX:7100±130bp(B18926)

7250±170bp(B18927)

FAC-25; WXXXIV

Source unknown

West

Table 3-5. Qillqatani excavation levels, radiocarbon dates, and obsidian samples. (a) Titicaca chronology, (b-c) levels and14C dates from Qillqatani, all dates are on charcoal and were analyzed by Beta Analytic, from Aldenderfer (1999). (d-f) Obsidian from Qillqatani chemically provenienced at MURR from data presented by Frye, Aldenderfer, and Glascock (1998), with "Tumuku" type replacing reference to "possible Alca-2", and Aconcahua type abbreviated to "Aconc."

/misc/image008.gif

Figure 3-7. Qillqatani data showing percentage of bifacially flaked tools and percentages of debris made from obsidian per assemblage by count (Aldenderfer 1999;Aldenderfer in prep.).

 

TOOLS

DEBRIS
 

Obsidian

Non-Obsidian

  

Obsidian

Non-Obsidian

  

Qillqatani Period

No.

Ave Wt.

No.

Ave Wt.

Total

No.

Ave Wt.

No.

Ave Wt.

Total

Late Horizon

AD1476-1532

    

13

0.84

13

10

0.68

128

1.57

138

LIP

AD1100-1476

2

0.75

11

3.35

13

22

0.46

308

1.81

330

Tiwanaku

AD500-1100

3

0.80

37

1.49

40

50

0.54

565

2.23

615

Late Formative

400BCE-AD500

9

0.84

102

2.19

111

91

0.47

859

2.19

950

Formative C

900-400 BCE

19

1.21

272

2.44

291

144

0.46

1157

1.39

1301

Formative B

1500-900 BCE

    

2

  

2

85

0.58

525

1.73

610

Formative A

2000-1500 BCE

6

0.93

32

1.49

38

160

0.53

1057

1.37

1217

Term. Archaic

3300-2000 BCE

12

0.99

58

3.00

70

79

0.79

403

1.79

482

Late Archaic

5000-3300 BCE

5

1.57

36

3.57

41

18

0.56

147

1.78

165

Middle Archaic

7000-5000 BCE

2

0.20

33

7.26

35

37

0.60

674

2.76

711

Total

58

1.05

596

2.87

654

696

0.55

5823

1.84

6519

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-6. Qillqatani periods by tools (bifacially flaked) and debitage (all other lithics), in obsidian and non-obsidian categories.

 

Excavations in the two blocks at Qillqatani revealed a switch from hunting and gathering to a predominantly pastoral economy between the occupation in level 25, and that of level 24 that was stratigraphically superior (Aldenderfer 2005: 20;). The occupation in Level 24 appears to have been the first residential occupation, and it is considerably thicker than were previous levels that appeared to have been logistical in nature. The ovoid structures of Level 24 are slightly larger and are free standing, while in the preceding levels the structures are against the rear wall of the rock shelter. Level 24 is the first level with ceramics, but it is being considered Terminal Archaic in this analysis due to economic evidence and the exceptionally early ceramics at Qillqatani.

Qillqatani Period

Weight in Grams

Total Count

0 - 1 g

1 - 2 g

2 - 3 g

3 - 4 g

4 - 5 g

Late Horizon

9

  

1

    

10

LIP

22

        

22

Tiwanaku

44

5

1

    

50

Late Formative

79

8

4

    

91

Formative C

129

11

2

2

  

144

Formative B

71

8

4

1

1

85

Formative A

135

17

5

1

2

160

Terminal Archaic

58

12

5

4

  

79

Late Archaic

13

4

1

    

18

Middle Archaic

29

4

2

2

  

37

Total Count

589

69

25

10

3

696

Table 3-7. Counts of obsidian debitage at Qillqatani by weight (g).

The earliest obsidian at Qillqatani is a Middle Archaic sample from an unknown source. In the Late Archaic, Chivay obsidian begins to appear at the rock shelter. Subsequently, during the Terminal Archaic obsidian from Chivay occurs in relatively large numbers and it persists until the end of the Early Formative (the Qillqatani Formative Cperiod) where chemical testing of ten obsidian samples reveals there is greater heterogeneity in obsidian procurement. In this period, Chivay obsidian makes up 60% of the obsidian tested by the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR), the Tumuku type makes up 20%, and the Aconcahua type and Alca type make up the remaining 10% (one sample of each).

Three obsidian artifacts from two proveniences at Qillqatani, West level XI and East level XIV, were found to belong to the Tumuku chemical group, a group that derives from an as-yet-unlocated source that probably lies in the southern department of Puno. This chemical group has not yet been well characterized, as no source samples are available and the samples analyzed by NAA in the 1970s at Lawrence Berkeley Labs (Browman 1998: 309-311; Burger and Asaro 1977) are not easily comparable with more recent NAA results from MURR. As a consequence, in initial studies of these three Qillqatani artifacts it was proposed that the artifacts belong to a subgroup from the Alca obsidian source in northern Arequipa, a subgroup that was referred to as "Alca-2" (Frye, et al. 1998) and "Alca-Z" (Jennings and Glascock 2002: 111). More recently, Michael Glascock at MURR has stated that these three Qillqatani samples probably derive from the Tumuku source (M. Glascock, March 2006, pers. comm.).

Flake sizes at Qillqatani indicate that relatively large flakes were being discarded (Table 3-7), particularly during the Terminal Archaic and Early to Middle Formative. A central question concerning obsidian circulation is to what degree were flakes used for shearing and butchering tasks? Were flakes sufficiently large to be hand-held for these activities? Length measurements from these flakes from Qillqatani are not available, but an estimate of the size of those flakes based on their weight is provided by comparing similar obsidian flakes from the Chivay source dataset. An obsidian flake weighing 4g from the Chivay dataset had the following dimensions: 45 x 13 x 7mm. A smaller obsidian flake weighing 3g measured 31 x 14 x 6mm. These flakes appear to have been sufficiently large for shearing and butchering tasks. Further technical studies, as well as use wear and residue analysis, may shed more light on the use of large obsidian flakes in the regional consumption zone.

Small quantities of material and regional models of exchange

The actual volume or weight of obsidian at Qillqatani is relatively small. Obsidian from the Chivay source appears in small quantities in nearly every stratum in the approximately 8000 year sequence. The most informative data on long distance exchange come not from the total mass of obsidian, but from the variability in the relative percentage of obsidian flaked and obsidian tools in each lithic assemblage through the sequence. Nevertheless, the weight of obsidian tools at Qillqatani totals 43 g, and the sum of the weight of obsidian flakes is 382 g out of a total of 11,085 g of lithic material. Thus, the entire quantity of obsidian excavated at Qillqatani is only about 1.5% of the cargo that could be carried by a single llama.

These figures are meant to highlight a central issue with obsidian studies overall: the actual quantities of obsidian encountered and evaluated from the consumption sites throughout the south-central Andes are relatively low. The significance of obsidian circulation over the larger region is not matter of weight or volume, but rather a question of consistency and changes in the proportions of particular sources utilized over time. These data from Qillqatani underscore this issue. A comparison of the persistence of non-local obsidian at Qillqatani as of level 24 (X

Table 3-6XandXTable 3-7X) with the non-local obsidian at Asana (XTable 3-4X) during earlier periods of the Archaic, suggests that on a regional scale mechanisms of exchange, or direct acquisition, were more intermittent during the earlier Asana phases. In contrast, Qillqatani has high quality cherts and low quality Aconcahua type obsidian available in the immediate proximity of the rock shelter. Thus, the question becomes: why transport Chivay obsidian 200 km when alternative materials are locally available? Further, why was the transmission of Chivay obsidian so consistent through time? In this perspective the low but consistent quantities of Chivay obsidian that were conveyed throughout the south-central Andean highlands during the prehispanic period can be seen as a gauge of highland interaction and horizontal complementarity, with wider implications for exchange.