A fundamental part of the social field model presumes exchange is first and foremost a social act, demonstrated by recurrent relationships between specific regions and/or communities. This implies other areas would be excluded from long-term, predetermined relationships, such that the absence of key styles in the collection may reflect communities from whom San Pedro inhabitants chose not to consume ceramics. The absence of key regional styles supports the proposal of discrete trade webs. The following discussion is divided by region to highlight areas or communities within the usual ambit of San Pedro interaction.
Southwestern Bolivia and northern Chile
A) Taltape (Dauelsberg 1984; Lecoq 1999)
B) Ticatica (Lecoq 1999)
Northwestern Argentina
A) Aguada (Berenguer 1984; Gonzalez 1961, 1965; Llagostera 1995; Raffino 1988;
Perez and Herendia 1975, 1987)
B) Santamariana (c. A. D. 1000 - 1550; Perrota and Podesta 1978)
The styles not represented in the San Pedro collection originate from northern Chile (i. e., Arica, Pica; Figure 49.1), west-central Bolivia, or central/southern northwestern Argentina; regions accessible and known to San Pedro inhabitants. The absence of these styles suggests they represented regions (and communities) with whom San Pedro inhabitants expressly did not exchange vessels. According to Martinez (1998), inhabitants of northern Chilean communities, including those within the Tarapaca region, did trade and reside in areas as far south as the Upper Rio Loa valley during the colonial period, but never engaged much with San Pedro people (except in Quillagua along the middle sector of the Rio Loa Valley; Aguero 1998; Aguero et al. 1997). This barrier suggests relationships were structured: oriented toward “known” friends or relatives as in a “social field” (see below; as described by Terrell 2001; Terrell and Welsh 1990; Welsch and Terrell 1998 inter alia).
World History
