Phase definition

The Tiwanaku Period is easily identifiable in surface collections due to the high frequency of certain distinctive vessel forms and decorative techniques. Red-slipped keros and tazones (Figure 8.1a-d) - varieties of flat-bottomed hyperboloid cups - are absolutely diagnostic of this phase, and very common. Brown and orange slips are also common, though less so than the red. Less common, though equally diagnostic, are flared-rim restricted bowls - escudillas (Figure 8.1e-f) - and large pedestal bowls often with evidence of burning on their interior - sahumadores or incensarios (Figure 8.1i). Both keros and sahumadores occasionally display zoomorphic modeled elements (Figure 8.1g-h). A specific variety of kero represents human facial features (Figure 8.1j).

Figure 8.1: Tiwanaku ceramics

a-d) keros, e-f) escudillas, g-h) modeled avian heads, i) sahumador, j) portrait kero.

Painted decoration is typically red on black. Polychromes are not uncommon however, and frequently incorporate orange, gray, yellow and white pigments in addition to black. Figurative elements include a wide variety of geometric motifs, as well as zoomorphic (felines, a variety of birds, camelids and even the occasional deer) and anthropomorphic (trophy heads, front-face and profile mythological figures, etc.) representations. Zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements range from naturalistic to highly abstract and stylized.

In his original statement of the Tiwanaku ceramic chronology Bennett distinguished between an earlier Classic and a later Decadent period ([Bennett 1934]). The Classic Tiwanaku ceramics were characterized by a relatively high frequency of polychromes, as well as by relatively naturalistic artwork. The Decadent Tiwanaku ceramics, by contrast, were duller - polishing being less common - with a lighter slip color. Decadent design motifs were highly abstract and stylized, with the naturalistic motifs of Classic ceramics - pumas, birds, humans - reduced to to geometric representations of metonymic elements. Basically, though, the distinction between Classic and Decadent can be reduced to ``a division of color treatment into a rich, varied group and drab, restricted group'' ([Bennett 1934]: 403). Modified by Ponce ([Ponce Sangines 1981]), Bennett's sequence has been generally adopted by more recent archaeological researchers.

Bennett himself noted that ``... the mass distinction of truly Decadent wares and truly Classic [is] an obvious one. However, detailed analysis proves embarrassing, because of the absence of sharp distinctions at any point.'' ([Bennett 1934]: 404-405) Here Bennett is saying that the distinction between the two phases is only a matter of changing frequencies of certain ceramic attributes. This presents a significant complication for settlement archaeology, as I discussed already in Chapter 3. When phases are distinguished only by attribute frequency, some mathematical technique must be employed to analytically separate the components of mixed surface assemblages. My treatment of the Chiripa ceramics is an example of such a technique. In the absence of this kind of methodology, the identification of components in complex mixed sites becomes difficult to the point of unreliability. Thus Bennett's Classic-Decadent sequence has been troublesome to settlement archaeologists working in the Titicaca Basin.

Albarracín-Jordan, in his analysis of the settlement data from the Lower Tiwanaku Valley([Albarracín-Jordan 1992,Albarracín-Jordan 1996a]), seems to have few reservations about identifying Tiwanaku IV as opposed to V components in mixed surface assemblages. James Mathews, who collaborated with Albarracín-Jordan on the Tiwanaku Valley survey, also attempted to distinguish Tiwanaku IV from V occupation sectors. However, he recognized that the procedure was questionable and attempted - without success - to formulate a more reliable methodology ([Mathews 1992]: 131-135).

Settlement archaeologists working in the Titicaca Basin but outside the Tiwanaku heartland have not attempted to distinguish earlier from later Tiwanaku occupations, but have instead grouped all Tiwanaku materials under the rubric of ``expansive Tiwanaku'' or simply ``Tiwanaku'' ([Hyslop 1976,Stanish and Steadman 1994,Stanish et al. 1997]: 45). The same is true of more recent research in the Tiwanaku heartland ([Albarracín-Jordan et al. 1993,Janusek 2002,Janusek and Kolata 2002]). Thus, since there exists no accepted method of identifying Tiwanaku IV or V occupations in mixed surface assemblages, ``[n]or is there a good consensus of what constitutes Tiwanaku IV versus Tiwanaku V decorated wares'' ([Mathews 1992]: 128), I have opted in the present study to follow general practice and to combine all Tiwanaku IV and V style materials into a single long Tiwanaku Period.

While the Tiwanaku decorated wares are highly distinctive and easily recognizable in mixed surface assemblages, Tiwanaku plainwares are another matter altogether. The latter seem to overlap significantly with both LF2 and Early Pacajes plainwares, making identification difficult. For this reason plainwares were not used for the identification of Tiwanaku occupations in the present study.