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.