San Pedro de Atacama (Figure 49.2) has figured prominently in the development of key archaeological models of regional interaction and in the revision of imperial models of the highland Tiwanaku state (ca. AD 100-1000). The attention paid to San Pedro de Atacama is due, in part, to the rich diversity of non-local ceramic vessels recovered from almost 6,000 graves, which have been studied extensively (Tarrago 1976, 1989, 1994; Uribe 2002; Uribe and Aguero 2001, 2004; Uribe et al. 2004). Many scholars interpret the data as indicating that San Pedro de Atacama was a key node in prehistoric trade networks (Browman 1984; Llagostera 1996; Nunez 1992, 1996; Nunez et al. 1975; Tarrago 1989; Torres and Conklin 1995). But this interpretation requires nuancing.
Recent research reveals important similarities between the cosmopolitan consumption of non-local ceramics in San Pedro and other sites throughout the region (Angelo 1999; Arellano 2000; Cespedes and Lecoq 1998; Fidel 1993; Lecoq 1985, 1997, 1999; Lecoq and Cespedes 1995-1997, 1997a, b; Mamani 1998; Nielsen 1998, 2000, 2004; Nielsen et al. 1999) including southern Bolivia, extreme northern Argentina and nearby highland Chile (Figure 49.1). These areas all demonstrate the same wide range of non-local ceramic styles. This generalized consumption of non-local vessels would easily point to intense and close-knit trade networks articulating settlements from the Chilean coast to the Amazonian edge of the altiplano. What confound this picture are the low quantities of such vessels or vessel fragments. Throughout the region, non-local ceramics display a rich array of styles, but occur in low quantities, thus insufficient to reflect the impression that they would have accumulated over 1,000 to 2,000 years of trade.
The cosmopolitan consumption of non-local ceramics is not the only similarity found among sites throughout the south-central Andes. Other material similarities between settlements include basketry, wooden implements and engraved gourds (i. e., Aguero 2000; Aguero et al. 1997; Bennett 1948; Berenguer et al. 1980; Castro et al. 1979, 1984; Uribe 1997; Uribe et al. 2004). These similarities suggest that the region constituted a large interaction sphere (or a series of such spheres), a set of peer polities, or a chain of articulated exchange networks, but with the recognition that the resulting web of social relations constituted more than straightforward trade relationships. Exclusive trade models, however, do not work very well in this area because while many material and behavioral correlates are shared that could be the result of years of interaction, ceramic styles remain discrete. In fact, the most significant difference between prehistoric communities in the south-central Andes is found in the production of discrete aesthetic ceramic or textile traditions.
An interesting new avenue of archaeological research has appeared in ethnographic or ethnohistoric considerations of regional cultural systems or what are being called social fields (MacEarchen 1998, 2001; Welsh and Terrell 1998; Terrell 2001; Terrell and Welsch 1990). These case studies describe large cultural complexes characterized by material similarities and differences at various spatial extents, characterizing a number of communities
That are, at once, distinct(ive) and intimately connected. They also provide an alternative to the purely economic trade models that do not entirely capture the social landscape of the prehistoric south-central Andes. This picture of the past not only defies current models that see trade participants as fundamentally in competition for resources, it also undermines the view of communities or social groups as discrete, mutually exclusive entities. Martinez’s (1990, 1996, 1998, 2000) parallel research in the Atacama argues for a similar multicultural social system that encompasses northern Chile, southern Bolivia and northwestern Argentina.
World History
