CONCLUSION

This review has highlighted important issues confronting archaeologists investigating the Late Pre-ceramic to Early Horizon eras. The Huaura-Fortaleza area (“norte chico”) has attracted global attention as the new cradle of Andean civilization. Much remains to be described and defined, however, about complex, multi-component sites. Recognition of aceramic sites occupied during the Initial Period warns against dating that is not well supported by radiocarbon assays. Confirmed Initial Period polities north and south of the Huaura-Fortaleza area apparently developed along very different trajectories. Assuming that both areas drew ideas from the precocious Huara-Fortaleza zone, why did they approach social complexity so differently? Achieving an understanding of the Chavln phenomenon is still hampered by many questions related to its definition, origins, and internal chronology.

We have taken a historical perspective in our review of the Late Pre-ceramic, Initial Period, and Early Horizon because interpretation of their associated cultural developments has changed so rapidly. Late Pre-ceramic inhabitants of the Andean area were initially characterized as coastal fisher-farmers yet recent work in the north-central coast (“norte chico”) reveals complex inland combined with coastal settlement that may have achieved an evolutionary status recognizable as the earliest Andean civilization. The Initial Period, first viewed as “marking time” between the Late Pre-ceramic and the subsequent Early Horizon, is now recognized as a dynamic time characterized by extremes in monumental construction and perhaps the first Andean state. The Chavln phenomenon, believed to characterize the entire Early Horizon, has been reinterpreted with respect to its chronology, its areal extent, the nature of its impact, and the ultimate origins of many of its components. By understanding the evolving sequence of interpretations readers can better assess arguments made by the archaeologists.