While the number of excavated Terminal Archaic sites is relatively small, general processes are apparent from recent work at several sites in the south-central Andean highlands.
At Ch'uxuqullu on the Island of the Sun, Stanish et al.(2002)report three obsidian samples from the Chivay source in Preceramic levels. Eight obsidian flakes were found in aceramic levels and were described as being from a middle stage of manufacture, and three of these were sourced with NAA. Two samples came from levels with a14C date of 3780±100bp (Teledyne-I-18, 314; 2500-1900 BCE) and a third Chivay obsidian sample comes from an aceramic level that immediately predates the first ceramics level which occurred at 3110±45bp (AMS-NSF; 1460-1260 BCE). Citing paleoclimate data, the authors observe that boat travel was required to access the Island of the Sun at this time.
Terminal Archaic projectile points in the Ilave valley demonstrate the dramatic shift in the frequency and use of obsidian that occurred in this time period (SectionX3.4.4X). XRF analysis of 68 obsidian artifacts excavated from Jiskairumoko show that the Chivay source was used with particular intensity in this period. The XRF study found that 97% of obsidian bifaces from Terminal Archaic and Early Formative levels at Jiskairumoko were from the Chivay source, however published obsidian studies from all time periods show that typically 90% of all obsidian analyzed from Titicaca Basin sites are from the Chivay source (XTable 3-3X).
The percentages of obsidian tools and debris remain generally similar to those in the Late Archaic level except that the counts are much higher (XFigure 3-7X). By count, obsidian tools are doubled, and obsidian debris is 4.3 times greater, and all the obsidian has visual characteristics of the Chivay type (Aldenderfer 1999).
Based on the density of obsidian, the relationship with the Chivay source area 221 km away seems to be well-established by this time, and it is a relationship that becomes even more well-developed in the Early Formative. Six samples of obsidian were analyzed at the MURR facility from Terminal Archaic contexts that are associated with a radiocarbon date of 3660±120 (Beta-43926; 2210-1880 BCE). All six obsidian samples were from the Chivay source.
At the site of Asana, obsidian reappears at the end of the Terminal Archaic during the Awati Phase dated to3640±80 (Beta-23364; 2300-1750 BCE)where it makes up 0.4% of lithic materials, but this obsidian was not from the Chivay source. It was judged from distinctive visual characteristics to have come from the Aconcagua obsidian source only 84 km to the east of Asana, near the town of Mazo Cruz(Aldenderfer 2000). Aconcahua type obsidian has characteristics that are less desirable for knapping due to fractures and perlitic veins that cross cut the material (see Appendix B.1), and while it was possible to derive sharp flakes for shearing and butchering functions, the material was probably not used for projectile point production(Frye, et al. 1998).
The shift to Aconcahua obsidian in the Awati phase at Asana is particularly puzzling given the evidence for Chivay obsidian circulation at this time period. It is precisely at the end of the Terminal Archaic that a dramatic spike in the use of Chivay obsidian at Qillqatani (SeeXTable 3-5XandXFigure 3-7X) took place. One may ask: Why is it that when the occupants of Qillqatani are importing Chivay obsidian in unprecedented quantities, the people of Asana are getting only small quantities of low-quality obsidian? In addition, this low-quality obsidian comes from Aconcahua, a source adjacent to Qillqatani?
Given the pattern of early Chivay obsidian at Asana, these Terminal Archaic distributions suggest that the high sierra residents at Asana were not participating in an altiplano-based circulation of goods as the Qillqatani residents. The residents of Asana never again participate in the circulation and consumption of Chivay obsidian, while at Qillqatani the consumption of Chivay material continues strongly for another one thousand years.