>>10997509

(Please read from the start)

“History of research at Cahuachi

Dr. Frabee was the first to actually acknowledge and excavate the site of Cahuachi in the Nazca region in 1922. The following researchers have also studied and interpreted the site: Kroeber (1926), Tello (1927), Doering (1932), Strong (1952−1953), Robinson (1954−1955).”

>> This is a nice list of people whom worked on the site. I suggest anons who study the site to take a look at the back ground of these people before relying on their works.

“Among the most extensive research done at Cahuachi was the excavations conducted by archaeologist William Strong. Strong was one of the only archaeologists who took a broad approach to the site, contextualizing it within Nasca society and south coast prehistory. He set out to find stratigraphic evidence that would resolve the gap between Paracas and Nasca styles in the region. He also did settlement pattern studies in order to find out the kinds of activities that went on at Cahuachi. William Duncan Strong's excavations in the early Nasca site of Cahuachi between 1952 and 1953 found that the site was composed of temples, cemeteries, and house mounds.[4] Following his findings, other scholars within Peruvian archaeology interpreted the site to have been an urban settlement with residential structures.[4] However, more recent excavations and experiments suggest this to be unlikely.

In the early 1980s, archaeologist Helaine Silverman and Italian architect Giuseppe Orefici conducted intensive and extensive archaeological excavations in several areas of the site.[4] This new research was aimed towards finding and clarifying the real character of the site and of Nasca society.[4] Orefici's excavations in 1983 had revealed the evidence ceramic production in the form of an oven; however he has recovered various burial sites, ceremonial drums, and pottery which suggests that the site is indeed a ceremonial center.

Cahuachi is where Helaine Silverman began her dissertation fieldwork on early Nasca society in 1983. She later concludes from her data and analysis how Cahuachi would have functioned as a ceremonial center and its role in state formation and urbanism, within a regional and pan-Andean scope. Silverman's data from the excavations and experiments in 1986, strongly support the claim that the site was indeed a ceremonial centre. Through her work and research, Silverman found no evidence of inhabitants or domestic and residential structures indicating it to be an urban settlement.[4] She suggested that the site was used as a ceremonial center where people periodically performed religious activities.[4] By examining the remains of pottery, Silverman also suggested that pottery was taken and was broken at the site as a part of the activities and rituals taking place at that time.[4] The vegetal and faunal remains also indicated that food was brought to the site and immediately consumed there.[4] Later research also indicated the consumption of hallucinogenic beverages at the site.

Excavations and surveys indicate that the site was not a permanent domestic habitat. The site contains around 40 archaeological mounds and progressive excavations of the area found that most of these mounds were not used for habitation, but that it was more likely a religious ceremonial setting.

Chronology and Nasca style pottery

There is a major emphasis on Nasca style pottery at Cahuachi. Recognized as a discrete style first by Adolf Bastian, Nasca style is a polychrome pottery and is generally noted as having a “south coast” provenance and is named Nasca for its focal regional distribution in the Nasca valley. There are two principal modalities in the decorative style of Nasca pottery: “Monumental” and “Proliferous” (coined terms by Rowe).”

• Page 407 –

>>11012120

(Please read from the start)

“Monumental refers to the types of Nasca pottery with so-called realistic designs, while Proliferous describes more “conventionalized motifs” with volutes, rays, and points. Gayton and Kroeber established three categorizable characteristics-shape, color, and design- and based on the relationships between these attributes came up with four chronological phases or “substyles” of Nasca pottery: A, the earliest; X, transitional; B, latest; and Y, miscellaneous or otherwise unable to be phased. Later, came the Dawson seriation which subdivided the Nasca style into nine phases. These are then associated into certain periods and epochs. Monumental includes Nasca 1−4 and Gayton and Kroeber's Nazca A, while Proliferous encompasses the innovation of Nasca 5 and Nasca 6 and 7 pottery and corresponds to Gayton and Kroeber's Nazca Y.

Because of the frequency of Nasca 3 pottery and its association with architecture at the site, the conclusion is that Cahuachi is Early Intermediate Period of the Ica (South Coast) ceramic periods. Nasca 1 and 2 are represented at a lesser degree, but are still significantly present as well. One of Strong's goals in his research at Cahuachi (Strong 1957) was "to resolve the temporal relationship between Paracas and Nasca" style pottery, which was still stratigraphically unproven. Stong's conclusions were that the ceremonial structures at Cahuachi date to the "Middle Nazca culture phase" (Nazca 3), and not Late Nazca. Instead, Late Nazca dates were only found to be associated with graves. According to Silverman (1993: 54), all later scholars are in basic agreement with Strong.”

>>Geoglyphs (also possibly the petroglyphs), pottery and textiles can all be used to find out if there is a link between the Paracas culture and the Nazca culture. And if one can be decoded, it can decode the other one. I don’t think it’s of importance if you start with the older (= Paracas) or the newer (=Nazca) to try to solve this. But since the Nazca lines have been studied more and “talked” about more, as in having more eyes on them; maybe, anons intereted should pay a closer look to the “neglected” Paracas geoglyphs. And as I’ve stated before, I believe the Paracas geoglyphs are linked to the Petroglyphs in the area view their geographic proximity.

“Agriculture and economy

Cahuachi is considered a non-urban ceremonial center, meaning that it was never densely occupied and people did not actually live there long-term, this is evidenced by perishable and temporary “wattle and daub-like” structures (not unlike the ones made today) excavated on site (Silverman 1988: 413). It was more of a pilgrimage or religious destination. So, although for the extensive evidence of Nasca pottery that is used to date the site, and considering the massive specialized culture that goes with it, the evidence for craft specialization and intensive trade and agriculture is understandably limited than if the site were a permanent residence of a large population.

Agriculture – edible food materials present

At least 15 species of shellfish remains were found at Cahuachi, as well as one type of echinoderm, and four types of fish. Interesting to note as well, is that the most abundant types of botanical remains found at Cahuachi were also most easily transported such as peanut, and were also locally and seasonally available like the huarango fruit native to the area, and more importantly, Cahuachi. The reason for why there is a limited amount of edible plant remains found here is because Cahuachi was not a permanently inhabited place, so any food that was brought there was kept in small storage and quickly consumed. Other edible foods found at Cahuchi include potato, sweet potato, manioc, beans, squash, and achira. Excavations at the Unit 16 wall revealed loose earth and some windblown organic remains found within postholes that had been excavated down to sterile soil. Materials recovered include: huarango seed, pacae leaf, guayaba seed, and llama excrement. Another excavation at the Unit 16 wall of five circular and roughly circular depressions contained, among other things, guinea pig hair, and gourd fragments.”

• Page 408 –

>>11012136

(Please read from the start)

“A special food preparation area evidenced by the presence of a corn popper and the ritual importance of corn in the Andes was also found at Cahuachi. Small storage facilities and vessels that would have contained food and drink only sufficient for short visits to the ceremonial center both support the fact that Cahuachi was not permanently inhabited at all times and therefore most likely did not have intensive agriculture at the site itself. That being said, all these remains had to come from somewhere, and so they can be used as evidence that indicates the types of food most popular and abundant in this area at the time. The presence of the food materials and the absence of most of their cultivation within the site of Cahuachi can also be indicative of trade networks within the surrounding communities.”

>> This Agriculture section is important for the researchers whom are working on trade, migration and trasnfer = exchanges in the Nazca culture and with the cutlures they came in contact with = to see the network of exchange. Because when you have a big religious center like this, it can attract a lot of traders from many cultures; and if we had many cultures trading in one area, it also means cultural exchange, including religious (=Staff-god), artistic and/or astronomical (=geoglyphs & petroglyphs). We might be looking at ground zero for exchange anons.

“Agriculture – ritual food materials present

Among ritual or ceremonial remains recovered through Strong's excavations at Cahuachi in Unit 2, also known as The Great Temple, were llama remains, bird plumage, as well as other things like fine pottery and panpipes, which he also interpreted as feasting and sacrificial materials (Silverman 1988: 412). Strong's 1957 excavations of a multitude of llama remains on the Great Temple, as well as some rare guinea pig remains at the excavation of Unit 19 are a small indication of the types of animals available in this area. At least 23 guinea pig remains, used as sacrificial offerings, were recovered. All had their heads jerked out of articulation and pristine preservation of their soft tissues allowed Silverman to determine that their undersides had been split open from the neck down, resembling modern-day divination rituals.”

>> I’ve seen this “reading of the guts” in many divination centers from many cultures, religions and period. It’s even done in witch craft till this day.

“Caches of maize, huarango pods, as well as a small concentration of shell were all found at Cahuachi, and are, again, considered to have ritual purposes rather than agricultural significance. At one of the more well-known constructions at Cahuachi is the Room of the Posts. Here, in front of a deep niche, were two cylindrical depressions, resembling postholes, and within them were found ten unworked pieces of Spondylus, a shell sacred in the Andean region. Within a round depression excavated in the room they found a cache of huarango pods. 16 whole pots and hundreds of sherds-all dating to Nasca 8 style- were also found in the room, along with a cache of blue-painted ají peppers, four portable looms, pyroengraved gourd rattles, and plain gourd containers. All were deposited as offerings, which makes sense since this is a ceremonial center. The abundance of the huarango fruit seeds and pods as the site, in both consumable and ritual use, is because it could be grown within the Cahuachi region and therefore was most at hand and used in everyday life, making it life sustaining as well as ritually significant.”

• Page 409 –

>>11012148

(Please read from the start)

“All the evidence within this category are relating to ritual and sacrificial purposes rather than direct agricultural practices at Cahuachi. Considering that this was a non-urban center, it seems safe to assume there was no intensive agriculture going on at Cahuachi, and rather any domesticated resource evidence found was brought to Cahuachi from the outside, like nearby cities or towns, and could quite possibly fall more under the category of trade rather than agriculture.

Economy – trade

Because Cahuachi was a non-urban ceremonial center there was not a permanent population living long-term within the site. This means that the people who did spend time there, were not there long enough to do things like set up an intensive agricultural system, or contribute to large-scale craft specialization and production. That is not to say that they did not do any of these things, but just not on as large of a scale as an actual city would. Cahuachi was, however, a ceremonial center and more importantly a religious destination, so there were people going to and from the site on a regular basis, developing a sort of "pilgrimage trade" system. Most things, like pottery, food, animals, and other transportable items were brought to Cahuachi by individuals.”

>> This is what I was trying to point out earlier. And I also want to attract anons attention that this practice still exist till nowadays regardless of the religion the reader follows.

“Among ritual or ceremonial remains recovered through Strong's excavations at Cahuachi in Unit 2 were things like fine pottery and panpipes (Silverman 1988: 412). Not all Nasca pottery was produced at Cahuachi. It is much more likely, especially for the fancy pottery, that it was produced in nearby regional centers where this type of craft specialization was prominent, and then brought to and used at Cahuachi (Silverman 1988: 424), indicative of trade goings on at Cahuachi rather than craft production. Economy - Craft specialization and production.

Economy – textiles

Cahuachi's role as a ceremonial center has left a major amount of its society's material expression of their cosmological beliefs; displaying their beliefs through such material items as textiles, ceramics, and decoration or iconography on these items. In Silverman's excavations, many loose threads, unattached three-dimensional embroideries, spun and unspun fiber, and several spindle whorls were all found. Strong also claims to have had found fancy textile remains, possibly used in Nasca funerary shrouds or elite/priestly attire, which would all make sense to the ceremonial center claim at Cahuachi. There is also evidence of the presence of craft quarters in the plaza at Cahuachi. Silverman believes that Cahuachi was “a locus of textile production where the shrouds of those special individuals buried at the site and the elaborate costumes worn by Nasca priests and/or ritual performers were produced.

Economy – pottery

Ceramic analysis at Cahuachi supports Silverman's assertion that Cahuachi was a non-urban ceremonial center because there is a predominance of fine ware rather than plain ware at the site, on the rate of 70% to 30%, which, if you think about it, would be unquestionably reversed if Cahuachi were a permanently inhabited urban area. The majority of plain ware that was found at the site were mainly those used for small-scale storage and burials, then those used for food service.

Fine ware, of ritual significance, was decorated and was used for burials and also included technologically complex panpipes, which is a form of craft specialization. Family-sized cooking pots are rare at the site. Not all Nasca pottery was produced at Cahuachi. It is much more likely, especially for the fine pottery, that it was produced in nearby regional centers where this type of craft specialization was prominent, and then brought to and used at Cahuachi. Again this fact is more indicative of trade goings on at Cahuachi rather than large scale craft production at the site.”

>> Makes perfect sense.

• Page 410 –