|
In comparing the work of these three men, an interesting pattern emerges, Uhle was quick to criticize the other two but reluctant to mention their work when he agreed with it. For example, Wiener's argument that Viracochapampa was an Inca site partially parallels Uhle's own argument. Both note that the site was planned and built as a single unit and both felt that only a large empire like that of the Inca would be capable of imposing such a large settlement. Similarly, Middendorf noted that the site was abandoned before it was complete and Uhle also argues that the site was never completed, noting that three different stages of construction are visible. There are also parallels in their discussions of Marcahuamachuco. Both Wiener and Uhle are impressed with the exceptional view from Marcahuamachuco, and Uhle feels that the "commanding view" was one of the reasons for the establishment of the site. Both Uhle and Middendorf note that despite the elevation of Marcahuamachuco (the highest point of which is about 3600 m above sea level, not 3800 m as Uhle says) the climate is temperate and both ascribe this to the warm air currents rising up from the deep valleys surrounding it. Uhle and Middendorf also agree that Marcahuamachuco is pre-Inca in date. Despite these parallels in their interpretations, Uhle's work in Huamachuco, even as we see it in this very brief, informal, and preliminary progress report, went far beyond the very limited observations of his predecessors. His general description of Marcahuamachuco is clear enough so that anyone familiar with the site can recognize the areas and buildings he writes about. The names of the hills he gives are still used but, curiously, the locations of two of these are now reversed. Uhle consistently uses the name Cerro Viejo for what is now called Cerro de los Corrales and vice versa. From his descriptions of the ruins and acequias located on these hills, it is quite clear that in his day the names were the reverse of modern usage. He defined two types of buildings, curvilinear and rectangular, and accurately describes their distributions and architectural characteristics. The curvilinear buildings he considers to be the more typical and describes them as palaces and fortresses. Whether described as a palace or a fortress, it is clear that he also considers them to be houses. Our work has shown clearly that people lived in these buildings and that they were neither palaces nor fortresses but their exact function is still unclear. Uhle seems to have considered the rectangular buildings to be later than the curvilinear buildings and, perhaps, built by a different group of people. Again, our excavations have contradicted Uhle's interpretation by showing the two building types to be contemporaneous. Uhle also defined three types of tombs. He was especially intrigued by burials placed inside the walls of buildings. It obviously occurred to him that these might be burials of sacrificial victims and he made careful observations about these tombs. The lack of grave goods, which he notes, would be consistent with sacrificial victims, but since he found part of a burial shroud in one tomb, he was inclined to think that the people had died natural deaths. He was also concerned to date the tombs relative to the walls. Were the burials put in during or after the construction of the walls? On the one hand, he felt that only sacrifices would be placed in the walls during construction. On the other hand, the burials seemed to be of people who died naturally yet the physical appearance of the walls suggested that the burials were made during construction. In this case, it seems that Uhle was right; the burials were of people who died natural deaths, and they were placed in the walls during construction. It also seems that the majority were secondary burials, that is, only the defleshed bones were buried in the walls. The lack of grave goods seems related to the presence of numerous niches in the buildings with wall tombs in which renewable offerings could be placed. Uhle also was struck by the scarcity of water at Marcahuamachuco. He carefully investigated and described two of the three major springs at the site. The question was how these small springs could have supplied water for a large population. While his interpretation of how the water is supplied to the springs is clear and correct, he never really was able to resolve the question. His work at Cerro Amaru concentrated on emptying and dredging one well. In the original letter to Mrs. Hearst, he drew a small sketch of the well profile, showing its dimensions and method of construction. He correctly interpretted the religious significance of the well and the importance of the Spondylus shell. This shell, known as "mullu", was closely associated with water, life, and fertility and was one of the most valued of all trade items. Uhle's observations at Viracochapampa were again quite good. He gives an accurate description of the general layout of the site. He notes the general similarity of the buildings to those at Marcahuamachuco but emphasizes the differences in masonry and construction technique. Both he and Middendorf, were quite correct to interpret the site as incomplete. Although Uhle wrongly dated the site to the Inca period, the logic of his argument for this date was clear and reasonable and his comparison of the layout to Pachacamac intriguing. He was certainly correct to point out that the lack of Spanish style streets conclusively showed that the site had to be pre-Conquest in date. His claim that there are few doors at Viracochapampa, however, is an error. He correctly identified the quarried for the site and pointed out that Viracochapampa was closely associated with an ancient road. At all of these sites, Uhle was asking important questions, making detailed observations, and proposing logical arguments. His letter to Mrs. Hearst thus reveals the truly scientific character of his work. As mentioned earlier, one of Uhle's primary concerns was the relative dating of sites by means of the associated pottery styles. In this regard, he had a difficult time in Huamachuco. Inca pottery occurs in the Huamachuco area but is not very common. The Tiahuanacoid, or Huari, styles are exceedingly scarce, occurring almost exclusively at Cerro Amaru and even there they are in the minority. Faced with this situation in which the two key styles of his four part sequence were scarce, he simply had to guess about the dates of sites. In his guesses, he did not do too badly. He argued correctly that Marcahuamachuco, Cerro Amaru, and Cerro Sazon were all, in part, contemporary and that Viracochapampa was slightly later. Although he realized that some of the stone sculpture was pre-Tiahuanacoid in date, he was hesitant to date any of the sites to that time period. Perhaps he was influenced in this regard by the exceptional preservation of the massive walls of the buildings and preconceived ideas about the development of urbanism derived from his work on the coast. In any case, he dated the florescence of all these sites later than is the case. Marcahuamachuco, Cerro Amaru, and Cerro Sazon were all flourishing during what Uhle would have called the pre-Tiahuanacoid period. All these sites, as well as Viracochapampa, also date to Uhle's Tiahuanaco period. Uhle was right to date some of the material at Marcahuamachuco to his post-Tiahuanaco period, but he was misled by reports of Inca pottery at Cerro Amaru. The Inca pot Uhle saw in Huamachuco which was said to have come from Cerro Amaru probably came from a small site, Canibamba, about 200 m south of Cerro Amaru. The fact that Uhle dated all the major sites later than they in fact are influenced his overall impressions of the importance of Huamachuco. In another letter to Mrs. Hearst, date Trujillo 13 July 1900, he sums up his impressions about Huamachuco as follows: "During my presence in the interior behind this part of the coast, I did not get the impression that this part of the mountains had been an especial centre of rich development of civilization in very old times. On the contrary, I had more the impression, that various waves of civilizations, developed in other parts of Peru, went over this part of the interior, leaving nearly no germs at all for the proper development of civilization, though at the end the general level of civilization may have been more or less similar to that reached in other parts of Peru." This conclusion was to be accepted for more than 80 years. Now we know, however, that Marcahuamachuco played a brief but crucial role in the development of Peruvian civilization, and that this occurred during what Uhle would have called the pre-Tiahuanaco and Tiahuanaco period. Uhle's brief research in Huamachuco was the foundation for much later work. Alfred Kroeber later analyzed the stone sculpture and influenced Theodore McCown to conduct further research in Huamachuco. Both these men were associated with University of California at Berkeley, where Uhle's collections, photos, and letters are still carefully preserved. Uhle's materials constitute a valuable scientific resource that is still worthy of further study. |
Página Anterior |
Avanzar
|