lanning, e. industrias de buriles en el pleistoceno de los andes. 1973

INDUSTRIAS DE BURILES EN EL PLEISTOCENO DE LOS ANDES

21

Estudios Atacameos N 1, pp. 21-32 (1973)

Industrias de buriles en el Pleistoceno de los Andes

EDWARD P. LANNING

RESUMEN

Los complejos arqueolgicos Exacto, Ayacucho yOquendo, del Ecuador y Per, pertenecen a unatradicin ltica marcada por buriles de tecnolo-ga compleja. Elementos de esta tradicin se en-cuentran en Chile en el Complejo Chuqui tardo.Dos sitios de la sierra ecuatoriana, El Inga y SanJos, probablemente fueron ocupados tambin porgente de esta tradicin. El Complejo Ayacuchoest fechado en 14.180-14.190 aos AP, y losdems probablemente son de la misma o de ma-yor antigedad.

Se postula: 1) La llegada en Norteamrica de unatecnologa del Paleoltico Superior; 2) La trans-misin de esta tradicin hacia los Andes hace al-rededor de 15.000 o 15.000 aos; 3) El empobre-cimiento progresivo de las tecnologas de burilesy lminas; y 4) La desaparicin de la tradicinhace poco menos de 14.000 aos, cuando fue re-emplazada por la tradicin de bifaces.

I have recently suggested the name BurinTradition for a number of interrelated lithicassemblages in Ecuador, Peru, and Chile (LanningMs). These include the Exacto Complex of coastalEcuador, the Oquendo Complex of coastal Peru,the Ayacucho Complex of highland Peru, and,peripherally, part of the Chuqui Complex of theAtacama Desert. Part of the mixed assemblage atEl Inga in the Ecuadorian highlands may alsobelong to this tradition, as may the San Jos siteof the same region.

The first Andean burins were discovered by RobertE. Bell and William Mayer-Oakes at El Inca in1960. Bell excavated in the site in 1961, amassingmore burins as well as projectile points and othermaterials of various periods. The first purecomponents of the Burin Tradition were found byThomas C. Patterson and myself in the Cerros deOquendo, Chilln Valley, late in 1962. Subsequentresearch has included the exploration of Exactosites in 1964 by the First Columbia University

Expedition to Ecuador; the discovery of the SanJos site in 1965 by Mayer-Oakes and Joan B.Townsend; exploration of Chuqui sites in 1966by the Columbia University Field Station inCalama; excavation of these sites in 1969 by BruceGrove of the Field Station; and excavation of theAyacucho layer at Pikimachay Cave in 1969 byRichard S. MacNeish.

Pikimachay Cave is the most important knownsite of the Burin Tradition. This cave is locatedin the Huanta Valley near Ayacucho, Peru, andwas excavated by MacNeish in mid 1969. Thedeepest layer, sealed in under a rock fall fromthe roof of the cave, yielded 51 artifacts, bonesof at least Paleolama and Megatherium, and threeradiocarbon dates: 14.180300; 14.180250, and14.190180 BP (UCLA laboratory numbers notyet available). Artifacts, designated AyacuchoComplex, are of basalt and flint. They includelarge simple and dihedral burins; choppers; flutedwedges; and notched pieces and denticulatesmade on large flakes. According to MacNeish,the flakes have large, wide-angle strikingplatforms like those found throughout the Andesin components of the Biface Tradition. Theassociation of artifacts, faunal remains, andradiocarbon samples are impeccable, since allcome from a single thin occupation layerimmediately buried under massive chunks of rockfallen from the cave roof (MacNeish Ms, personalcommunication).

Very similar to Ayacucho in artifact inventory, andprobably contemporary with it, are the five sites ofthe Exacto Complex on the Santa Elena Peninsulaof the Ecuadorian coast. All of the Ayacucho typesare found here, executed in Santa Elena chert, andthe specimens are of the same large dimensions(Figs. l-3). Core technique is somewhat different,since Exacto flakes tend toward right-angle strikingplatforms, but this difference may be due to theuse of different raw materials. Bladelets andmicroblade cores, which occur in small numbers,have not yet been reported from the Ayacuchocomplex (Lanning 1967a: 10).

EDWARD P. LANNING

22

Map 1. Location of archaeological complexes and sites attributed to the Burin Tradition


23

Figure 1. Exacto artifacts, chert. a) Dihedral burin on microblade core; b) Retouched flake

EDWARD P. LANNING

24

Figure 2. Exacto artifacts, chert. a) Notched piece; b) Denticulate


25

Figure 3. Exacto artifacts, chert. a) Notched piece on microblade core; b) bladelet; c) Fluted wedge

EDWARD P. LANNING

26

The other components of the Burin Tradition differconsiderably in core and burin technology, but allare linked to Ayacucho and Exacto by the basicinventory of simple and dihedral burins, notchedpieces, and denticulates.

Oquendo artifacts are all made of very finegrainedquartzite. Though simple and dihedral burins arepresent, the favorite form making up nearly 50%of all artifacts is the durin made on retouchedtruncation. Refinements such as side-edge retouchand stop notches indicate a more sophisticatedtechnology of burin manufacture. Oquendo burinsand flake tools are typically smaller than those ofExacto and Ayacucho. Microblade cores andbladelets are more abundant than in Exacto, butare still typically unretouched. There are nochoppers or fluted wedges. A few skewed scrapersand becs burinants made by reverse lateral retouchrepresent new elements not present in Exacto orAyacucho. Artifacts, whether made on flakes orcores, tend to be short and chunky as a consequenceof the original form of the raw material (Figs. 4-5)(Lanning 1963: 171, 1967c: 41-42, 1967d: 12-13;Lanning and Patterson 1967: 48-49).

Certain of the archaeological sites at the Salar deTalabre in the Atacama Desert, assigned to theChuqui Complex, show typological similarities toOquendo. These sites have all been seriated latein Bruce Groves tentative chronology for theChuqui Complex, whereas his early Chuqui sitesmore resemble the Red Zone Complex of Peru intheir artifact inventories. The following remarksare based on the collection from our siteRAnL-68B, which falls at or near the end ofGroves sequence. Artifacts are made of weldedtuff, silicified limestone, and low-grade chert. Theyaverage about the same size as Oquendo artifacts,but are typically made on little flat nodules ratherthan on flakes or cores (Figs. 6-7). Most of themare simple scraper-like tools made by steep lateralretouch, unlike the artifacts of other componentsof the burin Tradition but resembling those fromsuch hypothetically earlier assemblages as earlyChuqui and the Red Zone. Next in frequency arebecs burinants like those found in Oquendo, andnotched pieces. Denticulates, universal in otherBurin Tradition components, are absent. Burins,though not common, include all three classes:simple, dihedral, and made on retouchedtruncations. They do not show either side-edgeretouch or stop notches. Because of technical

difficulties inherent in the use of whole nodulesrather than flages, burin spall scars are typicallymuch shorter than in Oquendo. There are nochoppers, fluted wedges, microblade cores, orbladelets in any Chuqui site (Lanning 1967;Grove Ms).

El Inga and San Jos, the two sites in the centralEcuadorian highlands tentatively assigned to theBurin Tradition, both present problems ofidentification. I have not had opportunity to seeartifacts from San Jos. My only information isMayer-Oakes statement that it provides anobsidian industry much like El Inga with theexception that bi-faces (i.e. projectile points) arelacking (Mayer-Oakes Ms: 1). It thesimilarities are really close, perhaps the burins andrelated artifacts at El Inga should be interpretedas a component of the San Jos Complex,artificially mixed with post-Pleistocene materials.

It is precisely the possibility of such mixture thatleads me to view the El Inga burins as an unsolvedproblem. It there is a pre-projectile pointcomponent at El Inga, it should include at leastthe burins, the blade knives, the notched andstrangulated blades, and the unusual specimentthat Bell calls concave scraper-burin cores (Bell1965: 176-279, 288-303; Mayer-Oakes 1963). Theburins show the full range of sophisticatedOquendo tecnology, including dihedrals, retouchedtruncations, side-edge retouch, and stopnotches. The blades, if they merit the name, arepercussion-struck and apparently not from poly-hedral cores (Bell 1965: 276-277). Happily mostof the specimens are of obsidian, so thatmeasurements of hydration layers should soondetermine whether or not they are actually olderthan the projectile point from the site (Fig. 8).

Assuming that San Jos belongs to the BurinTradition, and that the burins, retouched blades,and related artifacts from El Inga represent a SanJos component mechanically mixed with latermaterials, we can venture a few hypothesis aboutthe antiquity, internal relationships, and ancestryof the various components of the Burin Tradition.

There is no reason to doubt the validity of theradiocarbon dates from Pikimachay Cave, whichplace the Ayacucho Complex in the vicinityof 14.200 BP. Exacto is sufficiently similarto Ayacucho that the two were probably


27

Figure 4. Oquento artifacts, quartzite. a) Dihedral burin with some end retouch; b) Dihedral burin;c) Burin on retouched truncation; d) Denticulate; e) Denticulate

EDWARD P. LANNING

28

Figure 5. Oquento artifacts chert. a) Denticutale; b) Blade; c) Scraper on microblade core


29

Figure 6. Chuqui artifacts, a-b) silicified limestone, c) welded tuff. a) Bec burinant;b) Dihegral burin; c) Burin on retouched truncation

EDWARD P. LANNING

30

Figure 7. Chuqui artifacts, a, c-d) welded tuff, b) silicified limestone. a) Retouched nodule;b) Notched piece and craper; c) Simple burin; d) Notched piece


31

Figure 8. El Inga artifacts, obsidian. a) Double burin on retouched truncation; b) Burin on retouched truncation; c) Dihedral burin;d) Retouched blade fragment; e) Notched blade; f) Retouched blade fragment; g) Denticulated blade fragment

EDWARD P. LANNING

32

approximately contemporary. These are the onlytwo known assemblages with only simple anddihedral burins. If the components with burins onretouched truncations are not contemporary localvariations, I suspect that they are still earlier.I have only a very tenuous reason for thishypothesis. As indicated above, Ayacucho coretechnology and flaketool typology are very similarto those of the Biface Tradition. The onlyradiocarbon date for a pure Biface Traditioncomponent is 10.430160 BP for the end ofChivateros I on the Peruvian coast (Lanning1967c: 44). This date, should it prove valid,suggests that the Biface Tradition was more recentthan the Burin Tradition in the Andes. If Ayacuchois most similar to the Biface Tradition, then othercomponents of the Burin Tradition especiallythose least similar to Ayacucho and to the BifaceTradition could be earlier. I would therefor liketo postulate an earlier group of Burin Traditioncomponents, perhaps dating around 15.000-16.000BP, including Oquendo and San Jos-El Inga; anda later group dating around 14.000 BP, includingAyacucho and Exacto. Late Chuqui is too differentfrom the other assemblages to hazard placing itin this scheme.

If we view the burins and retouched blades fromEl Inga as a late Pleistocene industry, divorcedfrom the projectile points, skin scrapers, and other

post-Pleistocene elements, the burin-blade industrybecomes recognizable as a typical, if somewhatimpoverished, Upper Paleolithic assemblage. Thesimilarities seem to me to rule out any possibilityother than historical continuity. If, there is anytruth to our hypothesis that the burins and bladetools are earlier than the projectile points, thenwe should concede direct Asian ancestry to the ElInga burins and blades. If no similar industry hasyet been reported from North America, it is onlybecause Paleoindian research in North Americahas not been oriented toward its discovery.

The remaining components can be viewed astechnologically impoverished offshoots of SanJos-El Inga: Oquendo through loss of blades asblanks for burins and retouched tools; Late Chuquithrough additional loss of stop notches andretouched side edges (perhaps because they werenot feasible for working whole nodules); Exactoand Ayacucho through loss of all of thesetechniques and also of retouched end truncations.

In summary, I postulate: 1) the spread into NorthAmerica of a typical Upper Paleolithic technologyand tool kit; 2) the arrival of this tradition in theAndes about 15.000 or 16.000 years ago; 3)progressive impoverishment of burin and bladetechnologies; and 4) their replacement shortly after14.000 BP by the Biface Tradition.

BELL, R. E., 1965. Archaeological investigations at the siteof El Inga, Ecuador. Editorial Casa de la Cultura Ecuato-riana, Quito.

GROVE, B., Ms. Some late Pleistocene lithic assemblagesfrom western South America. New Haven, 1969.

LANNING, E. P., 1963. Las culturas precermicas de la costacentral del Per. Letras, Organo de la Facultad de Letrasde la Universidad Nacional de San Marcos, nos 70-71,pp. 168-176. Lima.

1167a. Archaeological investigations on the Santa Ele-na Peninsula, Ecuador. Report to the National ScienceFoundation on research carried out under Grant GS-402,1964-1965. Columbia University, New York.

1967b. Informe previo de las investigaciones realizadaspor la Columbia University Field Station durante el ao1966. Universidad del Norte, Instituto de Ciencias So-ciales, Boletn Informativo 4. Antofagasta.

1967c. Peru before the Incas. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

1967d. Preceramic archaelogy of the Ancn-Chillnregion, central coast of Peru. Report to the NationalScience Foundation on research carried out under GrantGS-869, 1965-66. Columbia University, New York.

Ms. Lithic traditions in the Pleitocene of South America.New York, 1969.

LANNING, E. P., y T. C. PATTERSON, 1967 Early man in SouthAmerica. Scientific American 217 (5): 44-50.

MACNEISH, R. S., Ms. The first annual report of theArchaeological-Botanical Expedition to the Ayacucho-Huanta Region of Highland Peru. Andover, 1969.

MAYER-OAKES, W. J. 1963. Early man in the Andes.Scientific American 208 (5): 117-128.

Ms. Obsidian flake studies. Winnipeg, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

lanning, e. industrias de buriles en el pleistoceno de los andes. 1973

Documents