Between 1966 and 1972, Richard MacNeish led the “Ayacucho Archaeological-Botanical Project” in the Ayacucho Basin, south-central Peru. Over the last decade, we reappraised the lithics recovered in this endeavor. As part of this research, we carried out a detailed review of the lithic remains from the lowest strata of Pikimachay Cave. We concluded that the lithics from layers tentatively dated at about 14,000 uncalibrated yr BP are human-made artifacts, while those from the underlying levels are not. Because of the anthropic nature of the flaked artifacts, their stratigraphic position, chronology, and similarities with other likely coeval lithic assemblages, the Pikimachay record seems to be a good candidate for witnessing possible Paleoamerican foragers living in Ayacucho during the Late Pleistocene.
One of the main global centers for the emergence of complex societies was located along the Andean Cordillera, mainly in the Republic of Peru in South America. The archaeological evidence demonstrated that this process started in several places across the country (Mann, 2005; Sauer, 1950; Stanish, 2003; Towle, 1961). In this regard, Richard MacNeish’s investigations in the southern Andes were closely linked to deepening this topic in New World archaeology. He conceived the research in Peru based on his previous work in Tehuacán, Mexico (MacNeish, 1964a, 1964b, 1974, 1978a, 1978b, 1992a), he reached important conclusions concerning the origins of agriculture and social complexity in Mesoamerica (MacNeish, 1967; MacNeish et al., 1967, 1970a, 1972). To compare with those results, MacNeish (1969: pp. 1-54, 1992a: pp. 37-74) searched for a nuclear area with both socio-cultural and ecological similarities. As a result, he carried out the “Ayacucho Archaeological-Botanical Project” in southeastern Peru between 1966 and 1972, under the patronage of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation (
MacNeish’s research transformed the understanding of archaeology in the New World in several ways. He promoted innovative fieldwork methods, and the materials analyses brought attention to the importance of interdisciplinary teamwork. His investigations influenced generations of archaeologists. The collections resulting from his intense integrative research constitute a significant part of his legacy; the anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic samples collected during his projects are significant legacy collections (e.g. King & Samford, 2019; St. Amand et al., 2020). Although occasionally receiving a brief review from archaeologists, MacNeish’s collections have lain dormant for nearly four decades, especially those from his Peruvian research.
Beyond his initial project aims, MacNeish’s research allowed him to propose a regional sequence of human occupations in Ayacucho from the Late Pleistocene to Inca times (MacNeish, 1969; MacNeish et al., 1970a). Flea Cave or Pikimachay was one of the main sites providing data about the earliest peoples in the Ayacucho Basin (MacNeish, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1992b; MacNeish et al., 1970a, 1970b, 1980, 1981). In this regard, despite difficulties in integrating the different kinds of current evidence (Dillehay, 2019), the data obtained by diverse lines of
investigations suggest that several colonizing events occurred during the Late Pleistocene in the Americas (Goebel et al., 2008; Meltzer, 2009, 2013; Becerra- Valdivia & Higham, 2020). In North America, a growing number of sites provides archaeological remains witnessing the presence of human occupations some millennia before Clovis (Halligan et al., 2016; Waters et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2018; among others). In South America, several localities have yielded evidence supporting a similar view of initial occupation prior to the foragers who used “Fishtail” or Fell projectile points, which are almost coeval with Clovis and other Paleoindian manifestations (Ardelean et al., 2020; Boëda et al., 2014, 2016; Bryan et al., 1978; Dillehay, 1997; Dillehay et al., 2015, 2017; Ochsenius & Gruhn, 1979; Politis et al., 2016; Navarro-Harris et al., 2020; among others). There are controversies over this evidence (e.g. Dillehay et al., 2021; Gruhn, 2020; Politis & Prates, 2021; among others), that include serious questions about the human origin of artifacts associated with some of the older claims (~≥20,000 uncalibrated radiocarbon years before present) (Bryan & Gruhn, 1979; Chatters et al., 2022; Fiedel, 2017; Gómez Coutouly, 2022; Meltzer et al., 1997; Meltzer, 2009). In this frame, Pikimachay cave was one of several South American sites that yielded possible pre-Clovis archaeological vestiges. Its lower layers provided supposedly man-made artifacts dated at ~≥14,100 years before the present (14C years BP) (MacNeish, 1969, 1971, 1978b, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1970b, 1981). In the abundant literature about the site, the record of exhumed remains is incomplete, mainly lacking a comprehensive study, especially of those materials recovered in the Late Pleistocene layers (Dillehay, 1985). We based our study on the new approaches in lithic analysis developed since the publication of the project’s final reports (e.g. Andrefsky Jr., 2005; Odell, 2003). We analyzed the legacy collection resulting from the aforementioned project complemented with new fieldwork in the area (Giesso et al., 2020; León & Yataco Capcha, 2008; Yataco Capcha, 2011, 2020; Yataco Capcha & Nami, 2016; Yataco Capcha et al., 2021). In addition, the senior author carried out an internship at the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. There, being able to review Richard MacNeish’s field notebooks and contextualize another part of the lithic and bone collection of the Pikimachay cave found in this institution. This paper reports the reappraisal of the stone remains from the lower strata, adding new lithic artifacts that due to the lack of contextual information were not previously reported (Yataco Capcha, 2011).
Located in the south-central part of the Central Andes, the Ayacucho Basin is in the Marcahuillca Cordillera in the buttress of the Eastern Cordillera, and Vinchos that constitutes the continental watershed that passes through the upper area of the Western Cordillera. Its average heights range from 2500 to 4500 meters above sea level (Morche et al., 1995: p. 7). The landscape modeled by glacial action shows moraines, diverse erosive features, and glacio-fluvial deposits. It also presents several geotectonic and geodynamic processes (Yataco Capcha, 2020: pp. 39-47).
Pikimachay sits in a temperate, moderate, and rainy climate area, with temperatures ranging between 13˚C to 15˚C. It is placed in the inter-Andean region, consisting of a depression dissected by numerous rivers, rugged ravines with a steep slope. There, the main watercourse is the Cachi River, a source of the Marañón River, whose streams pass through the Ene and Ucayali rivers emptying into the Amazon. Southwest of Pacaicasa, the Cachi River joins with the Huarpa and Pongor rivers, forming various streams and high altitude steep valleys (Morche et al., 1995).
Geologically Pikimachay is located in the Molinoyoc formation, consisting of a sequence of dark lavas arising from several volcanic cones, among which stand out five made up of lava, slag, and ash spills reaching altitudes of approximately 3400 meters above sea level (see Giesso et al., 2020:
As mentioned above, MacNeish went to the Ayacucho basin to look for the origins of agriculture, searching for evidence for domesticated plants more than anything else. In this endeavor, nearly five hundred sites with evidence of human occupations were registered (MacNeish, 1969: p. 13; MacNeish et al., 1980: pp. 1-3). From the beginning of the surveys, it was presumed that the region had excellent archaeological potential (MacNeish, 1969: p. 6). For that reason, despite not finding botanical evidence, the team excavated eighteen different caves, yielding burials and long sequences with large amounts of lithic remains. Among them, Pikimachay Cave became one of the most important sites to shed light on the region’s earliest human occupations. The cave was found during the first survey, in 1966, in one of the volcanic cones. It is located at 2925 meters about sea level, on the eastern slope of Marcahuilca Hill (13˚02'18.93"S. Lat., 74˚13'41.27"W. Long.), ~2 kilometers northwest of Paccaicasa town, Huanta province, Ayacucho department (
purposes, the floor was divided into three sectors called the north, central, and south “rooms” (MacNeish et al., 1970a: p. 10; MacNeish et al., 1981: pp. 28-51). From the cave’s mouth and the drip line, the “rooms” are located from right to left respectively, around and behind the large blocks mostly found in the north-central portion of the entrance (
In the aforementioned “rooms”, three excavation sectors named as North, Central, and South “trenches” were independently excavated, with separate records and stratigraphy profiles (MacNeish, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1981, 1983). During the first field-season between June and September 1969, the team excavated the central and northern sectors. The main excavation was done in the southern portion during the second field-season in 1970 (
In some places, the Pikimachay sedimentary fill shows almost four meters depth, deposited between 500 to 25,000 years before the present. The layers—called “zones” by MacNeish (1969, 1979; among others)—were labeled according to the sectors of excavation (
It is necessary to point out that MacNeish was categorical in indicating that in the excavations carried out in 1969 on the southern section of the cave (
We believed that due to thickness of the deposits, some significant unconformities (Dott, 1963, 1983) may have occurred, mainly above the blocks. However,
the underlying strata show a moderately uniform horizontal deposition forming a deposit ≥ 1.5 m thick. These strata will be described due to the goal of our investigation (
The authors re-visited Pikimachay on several occasions and carefully examined the site, paying attention to and documenting the exposed Late Pleistocene sections remaining from the excavations, mainly the stratigraphic profiles from the southern sector. We observed that the stratigraphy in the Late Pleistocene deposit was made by sediments of exogenous and endogenous origin (Ones, 2003; Waters, 1992) displaced by wind and rain. The deposit mainly consists of silt, interspersed by very thin graded laminar layers of consolidated volcanic tuff indicating paleo reliefs formed by fine material eroded and displaced by wind and rain from the volcanic rocks of the regional geology (Dott & Howard, 1962; Dott, 1963).
According to geologist Carlos Toledo (UNMSM), these deposits were later consolidated through time by the effects of humidity and drought. Also, a paleomagnetic sample was taken from one of the exposed sections in the central room. A charcoal sample obtained from the sampled deposit and processed at the Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory (Poland) yielded a single conventional radiocarbon date indicating that the section belongs to the Late Holocene. We will publish the results of this research in the future. Additionally, obsidian samples found on the surface of the cave’s talus were collected and subjected to XRF provenance analysis (Giesso et al., 2020). In addition, other caves excavated by the MacNeish and his team were revisited (e.g. Yataco Capcha & Nami, 2016; Yataco Capcha, 2020). Also, intense surveys were made to search for new sites that could be excavated and for lithic raw material sources (e.g. Giesso et al., 2020; Yataco Capcha et al., 2021).
The last layer deposited before the cave’s ceiling fell were h and the overlying h. The latter is ~20 cm thick; and formed by a dusty, soft reddish-brown accumulation. It covered a small triangular surface of 21.75 m2 approximately 6 × 6 m, in the north end of the excavation. Covering an area of 119.13 m2 the most extensive stratum below the rock-fall was h, a slightly compact reddish-orange sediment. It varied from 5 to 10 cm along the cave wall to greater than 30 cm thickness near the cave’s mouth. Below is the h1 stratum, a highly compact yellowish deposit with a maximum thickness of ~40 - 50 cm, and an average ranging from 25 to 35 cm. It covers a surface of 122 m2, and only 104 m2 were excavated. The sediment of h was strongly acid, unlike h1, which was neutral (MacNeish et al., 1981: p. 49). Covering a surface between 50 to 60 m2, i was a dark brown layer reaching a maximum of ~30 cm in thickness. Measuring ~7 - 8 meters with an East-West direction, i1 was a compact reddish-brown stratum of ~30 cm maximum thickness. The excavation here covered an area of 20.5 m2, and the unexcavated surface was 3.13 m2. Extending between 8 to 14 m from east to west, stratum j is dark reddish-gray sediment which reached a maximum thickness of 40 cm. It covered an approximate area of 50 to 65 m2, of which only 33.42 m2 was exposed. Finally, overlaying the bedrock, k is a brownish-gray level with a maximum thickness of 30 cm. It covered a surface of 10 by 4 meters, with an excavated surface of 27.71 m2. Due to the acidity of the sediments, no botanical remains were preserved in the Pikimachay sedimentary fill (Bryant, 2003).
In summary, in a sedimentary deposit of about four meters of depth, a turning point is the collapse of the cave’s roof, witnessed by a significant number of blocks sealing the oldest strata. The layers above the rockfalls were non-uniformly deposited and perturbed by different animals and human agents (MacNeish et al., 1983: p. 136; MacNeish et al., 1981: pp. 49-50); the underlying strata showed a reasonable horizontal and uniform deposition, only disturbed by falling roof blocks in some places of h and h (MacNeish, 1979: pp. 33-41; MacNeish et al., 1981: p. 49). Another notable feature is that layers h to k show a highly compacted structure, almost lithified; and practically reaching a cemented stage in the sedimentary rock formation process (Blatt et al., 1980; Tarbuck & Lutgens, 1999; Yataco Capcha and Nami several pers. obs.). As the layers thickened, this part of the stratigraphy became harder (MacNeish, 1979: p. 18). Indeed, chisels were used for excavation, and their signatures are still visible in the remaining sections (
The Pikimachay radiocarbon chronology was one of the points criticized by the MacNeish’s detractors. Principally, due to the lack of information regarding their precise association with the archaeological remains (Rick, 1987; Lynch, 1974, 1990a, 1990b, 1992). We know that the chronology of the cave and its findings have been called into question, generating one of the passionate discussions between Lynch (Lynch, 1974: pp. 365-366; Lynch, 1983: pp. 93-94; Lynch, 1990a: p. 25; Lynch, 1992: pp. 256-259; Lynch, 1990b: pp. 164-165) and (MacNeish, 1979: pp. 1-47; Lynch, 1992: pp. 243-246). Furthermore, Rick (Rick, 1987: p. 60, 63; Rick, 1988: pp. 12-17) addressed the same issue. In this regard, he gave a superficial review of some of the lithic materials. Considering the current standards of archaeological research, these kinds of old excavations lack studies on formational processes; also, it is necessary to refine the chronology (Borrero, 2011: p. 387). However, we believe that it is necessary to undertake a review and calibration of the available radiocarbon dates obtained by MacNeish, not to assert that they are accurate, but rather, to give us a referential idea of the age of the studied strata (MacNeish et al., 1981: pp. 40-54; MacNeish et al., 1983: pp. 136-153). Hence, based on the new research performed in the MacNeish’s field notes at the Peabody Museum,
Five conventional radiocarbon assays dated the described stratigraphy. Lacking calibration curves at the time, they were reported as calendar years BC (MacNeish et al., 1981). However, the original dates were revised (see also MacNeish et al., 1970a: pp. 13-14; MacNeish et al., 1970b: pp. 975-977; MacNeish et al., 1981: pp. 51-54, pp. 208-209; Ziólkowski et al., 1994). The dates were processed using the
Material Dated | Grid | Layer | Depth (m) | Lab. Id. | Date (yr BP) | Calibrated range (yr BP) (95.4%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Megatheridae or Scelidotherium bone* | S19.1E3 | h | 2.67 | I-1464** | 14,150 ± 180 | 16,663 - 17,781 |
Bone | S21.7E7.72; S20.25E6.75 | i | 3.37 | UCLA-1653C | 14,700 ± 1400 | 14,179 - 22,021 |
Megatheridae bone | S20.5E7.24; S20.3E7.6 | i1 | 3.40/3.44 | UCLA-1653B | 16,050 ± 1,200 | 16,839 - 22,960 |
Bone | S22E9; S20.15E7.4; S20.2E8.98; S20.25E8.88. | j | 3.52/3.73 | UCLA-1653A | 19,600 ± 3,000 | 17,385 - 43,148 |
Bone | S21.6E9.55 | j | 3.58 | I-5851 | 20,200 ± 1,050 | 22,297 - 26,981 |
OxCal v4.4 program and the SHCal20 southern hemisphere calibration curve showing the calendar-calibrated ranges at the 95.4% probability level (Hogg et al., 2020: pp. 759-778). The results were kindly checked and processed again by Christopher Ramsey (pers. comm. 2022). The conventional radiocarbon dates and the calibrated results are given in
The Pikimachay dates are the results of the application of old conventional radiocarbon techniques; for that reason, some show wide ± sigma. Because of this, two bone samples from layer h and curated at the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology were submitted for AMS radiocarbon dating to Beta Analytic Inc. (Florida, USA). Unfortunately, both samples failed to yield a separable collagen fraction and cannot be dated. Because of the above, most dates remain problematic. Only the two from layers h and i are plausible, and only I-1464 comes close to the standards of the current radiocarbon dating. The others have very long distributional spans, probably because they were made on multiple bone fragments (Deviese et al., 2018; Haynes, 2015). Then, the most acceptable date is the one collected from layer h, which significantly overlaps with the assay obtained from the underlying strata i. Notwithstanding the above, until new data are available, they are still useful to provide a chronological framework for the stratigraphy containing the lithic sample studied. Judging by the dates obtained and the overlapping calibrated results, the layers h to k belong to the Post Last Glacial Maximum during the Late Pleistocene, in a period spanning 15,000 to 25,000 years before the present. Also, the chronological data suggest that there are no significant unconformities in the lower layers, mainly between h to i, whose deposit of ~≥1.5 meter thick spans ~≤1.000 years. The available radiocarbon information supports the interpretation that were chronological and stratigraphic unconformities in the deposit overlying the rockfalls (MacNeish et al., 1981: pp. 43-56), a situation that apparently did not occur in the lowest strata (
Below, we will depict and discuss the remains coming from these lower levels, claimed to be the vestiges left by the oldest human occupations at Pikimachay. The lithics characterized as the “Ayacucho and Paccaicasa complexes” supposedly identified in the layers h and h1, and i to k, respectively.
The studied materials at curated at the Museum of Anthropology and Archeology of the San Marcos University (MAA-UNMSM), Lima, Peru. A few pieces are at the National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology, and History of Peru (MNAAHP). Finally, MacNeish’s excavations field notes and documentation are in the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology (RSPIA), Andover, Massachusetts, USA.
Worth remembering that since the first reports (MacNeish, 1969, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1970b), the evidence of the claimed oldest occupations of Pikimachay were subject of many questions and doubts (Lynch, 1974, 1990a, 1990b, 1992). One of the main difficulties regarding the supposed Paleoamerican evidence was that in the final reports; the finds were not depicted with precision, and the stone artifacts, as well the raw material identifications, were not clearly defined and described (Dillehay, 1985; Rick, 1988). To elucidate this problem, we reevaluate the lithic artifacts from the oldest layers describe above.
The re-analysis allowed us to determine the number of materials exhumed at Pikimachay. They mostly consist of the stone finds and there are some faunal remains. In the earliest strata there were stone artifacts associated with Pleistocene animal bones (MacNeish et al., 1970b: pp. 975-977; MacNeish, 1971: pp. 36-46). To contextualize our specific study, we first assess the findings and observations noted from layers h to j. Among the most significant finds were an important number of complete (e.g. Figures 8(A)-(J)) and fragmented bones of extinct and extant fauna, which associated with the stone remains (MacNeish, 1969, 1971, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1980: pp. 309-321). With the aim of contextualizing our specific study, we firstly provide a glimpse of the findings and observations made on layers h to j. The following animals were present: h: rodents, and skunk, h to i1: horse, h to k: ground sloth, i1: mastodon, and possibly camelid, h: cougar, h1: perhaps saber-toothed tiger, i1: feline, and j: cervid. Despite the lack of a detailed paleontological study, MacNeish (1979) pointed out that some of the previously mentioned fossil bones are from the following species: Scelidotherium tarijensis (Miño-Boilini et al., 2014), Megatherium tarijensis (De Iuliis et al., 2009), Equus (Amerhippus)andium (Prado & Alberdi, 1994, 2017). Furthermore, in an unpublished report, Wing (n.d.) identified the following species: Eremotherium (Pujos & Salas, 2004), Mylodontidae (Salas & Stucchi, 2005), and Mastodon (Salas & Stucchi, 2005).
The bones of extinct fauna and the stone tools exhumed in layers h and h1 suggest that they were coeval and, in some cases, related to each other (MacNeish, 1969, 1971, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1970b). The sample of osseous remains curated at the MAA-UNMSM and at the RSPIA were recorded; the most significant bones were documented in detail (Yataco Capcha, 2011, 2020), mainly those showing diverse kinds of marks and alterations that might be signs of human agency (MacNeish et al., 1970b: pp. 975-977, MacNeish, 1971: pp. 36-46; Yataco Capcha, 2011, 2020). Discriminated by layers, the samples of osseous remains from the MAA-UNMSM collections are as follows: h (n = 16), h1 (n = 4), and no bone remains from i to k. However, 35 pieces curated at the RSPIA are recorded as coming from layers h (n = 8), h1 (n = 3), i (n = 10), i1 (n = 12), j (n = 1), and k (n = 1). Several displayed diverse types of fractures, modifications, and marks on their surfaces. The most notable specimens showing alterations and modification were carefully analyzed, and some preliminary and tentative interpretations were proposed (Yataco Capcha, 2011, 2020). Nevertheless, bearing in mind the complexity of natural and cultural modifications acting on the bones after their deposition, and that the marks, fractures, and alterations may be due to different causes, it was crucial to perform a specialized taphonomic study to get a better sense of their origins and characteristics. Detailed descriptions of the taphonomic observations and discussions are given elsewhere (Nami et al., 2021).
However, for this paper, some general statements can be made. Concerning the general state of preservation, the taphonomic scrutiny showed a clear difference between the bone remains from h and h1 and those from the underlying layers. Those bones from h and h1 show good preservation with details of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic features (Figures 8(A)-(H)). The most important are trampling (
Due to the spatial distribution of the bones, possible hearths, and the claimed human-made stone remains, the cave’s excavators (MacNeish, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1983: pp. 136-153) suggested the existence of several “activity areas” corresponding to the above mentioned early “cultural complexes.” However, several authors criticized these interpretations in a variety of ways (Bonavia, 1991: p. 89; Lynch, 1983: pp. 93-94; Rick, 1988: pp. 12-17), particularly questioning the anthropogenic origin of the layers assessed in this paper (Lynch, 1974: pp. 365-366).
Discriminated by strata, the analyzed sample (n = 81) of lithic remains is as follows: h (n = 48), h1 (n = 18), i (n = 5), i1 (n = 2), j (n = 4), and k (n = 4). In addition, 16 pieces were recorded at the MNAAHP but only four have been determined as anthropogenic and published by Veronica Ortiz (MNAAHP, 2015) (Figures 9(A)-(D)). A morpho-technological study of each specimen was made to distinguish the human made artifacts. Hence, the collection was reviewed in detail, evaluating the material macroscopically, and, when possible, microscopically. General guidelines were employed in this analysis (Andrefsky Jr., 2005; Bordes, 1981; De Sonneville-Bordes & Perrot, 1956; Inizan et al., 1995; Merino, 1994; Piel-Desruisseaux, 1989); as well as a survey of a great deal of specific literature, mainly resulting from middle-range research to understand prehistoric lithic technologies (Callahan, 1979; Nami, 1986; among others). Also considered were the different natural agents causing ambiguous stone objects, a topic that was crucial in this investigation (Ellen, 2011; Grayson, 1986; Raynal et al., 1995; among others). The sample was carefully documented with photographs, as well as technical drawings that helped visualize some attributes that were difficult to
capture with photographs alone. The majority of the sample is depicted in Figures 9-12 and Figures 14-16.
With the new inventory of the Pikimachay collection we elaborated the lithic typology of the studied artifacts from layer h, h1 and i1, identifying 67 anthropogenic artifacts (
Categories | Layers | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h | % | h1 | % | i1 | % | |
A. Unifacial tools | ||||||
A.1. Flakes with marginal retouch | 11 | 22.91% | 1 | 5.50% | - | - |
A.2. Knife | 3 | 6.25% | 1 | 5.50% | - | - |
A.3. Denticulate | 5 | 10.41% | 3 | 16.60% | - | - |
A.4. Perforator | 1 | 2.08% | 1 | 5.50% | - | - |
A.5. End-Scraper | 3 | 6.25% | 2 | 11.10% | - | - |
A.6. Chopper | 2 | 4.16% | - | - | - | - |
B. Bifacial artifacts | ||||||
B.1. Early bifacial stage and preform | 2 | 4.16% | - | - | - | - |
C. Pebble implements | ||||||
C.1. Manuports and ecofacts | - | - | 3 | 16.60% | - | - |
D. Flaking wasted | ||||||
D.1. Flakes and shatters | 16 | 33.33% | 5 | 27.70% | - | - |
D.2. Cores | 5 | 10.41% | 2 | 11.10% | 1 | 100% |
Total | 48 | 100% | 18 | 100% | 1 | 100% |
Layer | Label | Square | Definition | Raw Material | Munsel Color | Color description | Figures in the mai paper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h | Ac100 277-V-dd(h) | S24E7 | Flake | Quartz | 5Y 4/1 | olive gray | |
h | Ac100 166-VIII-d(h) | S20E3 | Flake | Chert | 5Y 8/1; N9 | Yellowish gray; white | |
h | Ac100 216-12dd | S24E5 | Flake with marginal retouch | Volcanic tuff | 5R 3/4 | Dusky red | |
h | Ac100 VIII-H | S20E3 | Flake | Chert | 5YR 4/1 | Brownish gray | |
h | Ac100 206-2-1 | S23E3 | Perforator | Jasper | 10YR 5/4 | Moderate yellowish brown | |
h | Ac100 274-Ia | S22-20E3-1 | Knife | Quartz sandstone | 5Y 8/4 | Moderate orange pink | |
h | Ac100 216-2 | S24E5 | Early bifacial stage | Volcanic tuff | 5G 5/2 | verde amarillo moderado | |
h | Ac100 207-1n | S23E6 | Denticulate | Chert | 5YR 5/6 | Light brown | |
h | Ac100 264-II-SS10 | S20E1 | Flake with marginal retouch | Chert | 5B 7/1; N1 | Light bluish gray; Black | |
h | Ac100 220-2d-d1 | S21E2 | Flake with marginal retouch | Quartz | 10R 4/6; 10YR 8/2 | Modderate reddish brown; very pale orange | |
h | Ac 100 231-VII dd | S18E5.50 | Early bifacial stage | Volcanic tuff | 10YR 8/2 | Very pale orange | |
h | Ac100 345-II | S15E13 | Scraper | Obsidian | N1 | black |
h | Ac100 251-VII-ss | S18E8 | Denticulate | Volcanic tuff | 5GY 8/1; 5Y 8/1 | Light greenish gray; yellowish gray. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h | Ac100 217-6d2 | S17E6-4 | Scraper | Volcanic tuff | 5P 6/2 | Pale purple | |
h | Ac100 159-Ie | S21-22E7 | Chopper | Basalt | 5Y 4/1 | olive gray | |
h | Ac100 280-III-ee | S25-26E6 | Knife | Volcanic tuff | 5B 5/1 | medium bluish gray | |
h | Ac100 293-V-nn4 | S17E6 | Denticulate abrupt | Quartz | 5Y 8/1; 10R 6/6 | Yellowish gray; Dark yellowish orange | |
h | Ac100 259-IV-dd | S19E9 | Scraper | Chert | N9; 5Y 8/1 | White; Yellowish gray | |
h | Ac100 264-II-nn | S20E1 | Core | Jasper | 10R 4/6; 10YR 7/4 | Moderate reddish brown; Grayish orange | |
h | Ac100 266-II gg9 | S20E6 | Shatter | Volcanic tuff | 5RP 2/2; 5P 6/2 | Very dusky purple; Pale purple | |
h | Ac100 281-III-d1 | S25, 26E7 | Core | Quartz | 5Y 8/4 | amarilo grisáceo | |
h | Ac100 231-7d3 | S18E5.50 | Flake | Volcanic tuff | 5R 3/4 | Dusky red | |
h | Ac100 257-III-L2 | S20E7 | Flake | Quartz | 5Y 8/1; N9 | Yellowish gray; white | |
h | Ac100 224-1LL1 | S22E3 | Flake | Volcanic tuff | 5YR 6/1; N5 | light brownish gray; medium gray | |
h | Ac100 163-VII-L1-H | S19E5 | Flake | Basalt | N3; N1 | Dark gray; black | |
h | Ac100 214-2nn | S15E8-9 | Knife | Chert | 5GY 8/1; 5Y 8/1 | Light greenish gray; yellowish gray. | |
h | Ac100 221-?d | S18E4 | Flake | Basalt | N2 | Grayish black | |
h | Ac100 231-VII-nn | S18E5.50 | Shatter | Chert | 10YR 4/2 | Dark yellowish brown | |
h | Ac100 226-4dd | S22E9 | Shatter | Quartz | 5Y 8/1; 10YR 4/2 | Yellowish gray; dark yellowish brown | |
h | Ac100 264-II-nn | S20E1 | Shatter | Chert | 5YR 6/1; N5 | light brownish gray; medium gray | |
h | Ac100 161-VIII-dH1 | S21, 22E5 | Flake | Volcanic tuff | 5RP 4/2 | Grayish red purple | |
h | Ac100 281-III-nn1 | S25, 26E7 | Core | Quartz | 5Y 8/1; N9 | Yellowish gray; white | |
h | Ac100 266-II-dd8 | S20E6 | Shatter | Volcanic tuff | N5 | Medium gray | |
h | Ac100 165-VIII LH | S19E4 | Flake | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 8/1, N1 | Yellowish gray, black | |
h | Ac100 257-h | S19E7 | Core | Volcanic tuff | 10YR 8/6; 10YR 7/4 | Pale yellowish ornge; Grayish orange | |
h | Ac100 153-IIe4 | S23E7 | Flake | Volcanic tuff | 5B 7/1 | Light bluish gray |
h | Ac100 272-I-e1 | S22E1 | Denticulate | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 4/1 | olive gray | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h1 | Ac100 231-VII ee | S18E5.50 | Flake | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 4/1 | Olive gray | |
h1 | Ac100 231-7d4 ss10 | S18E5.50 | knife | Volcanic tuff | 5YR 5/2 | Pale brown | |
h1 | Ac100 276-III-ss//17 | S24E6 | scraper | Quartz | N9 | White | |
h1 | Ac100 152-?-1 | S21E6 | Shatter | chert | 10YR 7/4; 5Y 4/4 | Grayish orange; Moderate olive brown | |
h1 | Ac100 303-IIIs1 | S16E4 | Denticulate abrupt | Chert | 10YR 7/4; 5Y 4/4 | Grayish orange; Moderate olive brown | |
h1 | Ac100 257-III-d2 | S19E9 | Flake with marginal retouch | Quartz | 5Y 8/1 | Yellowish gray | |
h1 | Ac100 210-I-1nn | S21E4 | Core | Volcanic tuff | 10YR 8/6; 10YR 7/4 | Pale yellowish orange; Grayish orange | |
h1 | Ac100 217-7-III | S17E6-5-5-4 | Ecofact | Quartz | N8 | Very light gray | |
h1 | Ac100 231-VIII-L | S18E5.50 | Ecofact | Basalt | N1; N5 | Blanck; meddium gray | |
h1 | Ac100 217-6-d3 | S17E6-5-5-4 | Perforator | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 8/1; 5YR 6/1 | Yellowish gray; Light brownish gray | |
h1 | Ac100 161-VII-H1 | S21-22E5 | Shatter | Quartz | N9 | White | |
h1 | Ac100 276-III-dd | S24E6 | Flake | Chert | 10YR 7/4; 5Y 4/4 | Grayish orange; Moderate olive brown | |
h1 | Ac100 152-?dd | S21E6 | Flake | Chert | 10YR 7/4; 5Y 4/4 | Grayish orange; Moderate olive brown | |
h1 | Ac100 276-III-ss | S24E6 | Denticulate | Quartzite | 10YR 2/2 | Dusky yellowish brown | |
h1 | Ac100 228-II dd1 | S23E2 | Scraper | Chert | 10Y 8/2, 10Y 6/2 | Pale greenish yellow; Pale olive | |
h1 | Ac100 221-?d/SS53 | S18E4 | Denticulate abrupt | Quartz | 10YR 7/4, 5Y 4/4 | Grayish orange; Moderate olive brown | |
i1 | Ac100 218-7-f3 | S21E8 | Core | Quartzite | 10YR 2/2 | Dusky yellowish brown |
Variety of Lithic Materials | Rock | Origin | Hardness* | Range | Typology | Strategies and techniques | Figures in the main paper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sedimentary | Quartz sandstone | local | 3 | R | A.2 | PF, PrF | |
Metamorphic | Quartzite | local | 7 | R - B | A.3; D.2 | PF | |
Igneous volcanic | Diabase | local | 6 | R - B | D.1 | PF | - |
Basalt | local | 4.8 - 6.5 | R - G | A.6; C.1; D.1; D.2 | PF, PrF, BR |
Volcanic tuff | local | 7 | R - G | A.1; A.2; A.3; A.4; A.5; A.6; B.1; C.1; D.1; D.2 | PF, PrF | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minerals | Quartz | local | 7 | G - E | A.1; A.5; A.3; C.1; D.1; D.2 | PF, PrF | |
Chert | local | 7 | G - E | A.1; A.2; A.3; A.5; D.1 | PF, PrF | ||
Jasper | local | 6.5 - 7 | G - E | A.1; A.4 | PF, PrF | ||
Obsidian | not determined | 5 - 7 | G - E | A.5 | PF, PrF |
Artifacts’ classes | Layers | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h | h1 | i1 | |||||||||||||
Q | L | W | T | We | Q | L | W | T | We | Q | L | W | T | We | |
A.1. Flakes with marginal retouch | 11 | 41.25 | 37.37 | 19 | 28.27 | 1 | 16 | 25 | 8 | 3.27 | - | - | - | - | - |
A.2. Knife | 3 | 24 | 23.66 | 12.66 | 13.21 | 1 | 36 | 33 | 21 | 10.11 | - | - | - | - | - |
A.3. Denticulate | 5 | 59.2 | 47.8 | 28.4 | 128.52 | 3 | 50 | 42 | 22 | 44.82 | - | - | - | - | - |
A.4. Perforator | 1 | 53 | 51 | 17 | * | 1 | 51 | 51 | 13 | 20.88 | - | - | - | - | - |
A.5. End-Scraper | 3 | 33.6 | 31 | 12 | 13.91 | 2 | 46.5 | 37 | 23 | 37 | - | - | - | - | - |
A.6. Chopper | 2 | 70.5 | 63.5 | 34.5 | 153.48 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
B.1. Early bifacial stage and preform | 2 | 58 | 36 | 13.5 | 28.37 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
C.1. Manuports and ecofacts | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 50.33 | 58 | 24.6 | 133.8 | - | - | - | - | - |
D.1. Flakes and shatters | 16 | 40.13 | 36.2 | 14.6 | 27.06 | 5 | 28 | 28 | 10 | 18.58 | - | - | - | - | - |
D.2. Cores | 5 | 64.8 | 57.6 | 36.8 | 216.19 | 2 | 46.5 | 42.5 | 29.5 | 67.94 | 1 | 57 | 74 | 50 | 219.48 |
Layer | Label | Type | Square | Definition by MacNeish | Raw Material | Munsel Color | Color description | Figures in the main paper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
i | Ac100 257-IV-3 | SS50 | S19E7 | Tufa slab spokeshaves | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 4/1 | Gray olive | |
i | Ac100 359-IV-n1 | - | S19E10 | - | Volcanic tuff | 5B 7/1 | Light bluish gray | |
i | Ac100 267-III-d1 | - | S20E7 | - | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 4/1; 10R 6/2 | Gray olive; Pale red | |
i | Ac100 162-VIII | SS58 | - | Ayacucho Burin | Volcanic tuff | 5G 4/1 | Dark greenish gray | |
i | Ac100 | SS52 | - | Large denticulate | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 6/1 | Light olive gray |
i1 | Ac100 340-?-3 | SS53 | S22E10 | Large denticulate | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 6/1 | Light olive gray | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
j | Ac100 226-VII-f1 | B20 | S22E9 | Hammer core chopper | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 4/1 | Gray olive | |
j | Ac100 152-VII S1 | B21 | S21E6 | Tufa flake chopper | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 6/1 | Light olive gray | |
j | Ac100 226-VI-dd3 | B21 | S22E9 | Tufa flake chopper | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 6/1 | Light olive gray | |
j | Ac100 258-14 d1 | B21 | S19E8 | Tufa flake chopper | Volcanic tuff | 5Y 6/1 | Light olive gray | |
k | Ac100 267-VIII-K | SS50 | S20E7 | Tufa slab spokeshaves | Volcanic tuff | 5G 6/1 | Greenish gray | |
k | Ac100 267-VIII-d1 | SS50 | S20E7 | Tufa slab spokeshaves | Volcanic tuff | 5YR 6/1; 5Y 6/1 | Light brownish gray; Light olive gray | |
k | Ac100 223-VIII-d4 | SS55 | S21E9 | Pebble side scraper | Volcanic tuff | 5B 5/1 | Medium bluish gray | |
k | Ac100 154-?-f6 | SS53 | S21E5 | Large denticulate | Volcanic tuff | 5B 7/1 | Light bluish gray |
Following is a summary of the individual analysis and observations of the most significant examples considering their location in the stratigraphic sequence. The raw materials used in making the flaked artifacts were identified by
macroscopic petrographic analysis by the geologist Carlos Toledo, with the result a diverse selection of materials from sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks (Yataco Capcha, 2011; Yataco Capcha, 2020). The colors varied; in some cases, identified according to the Munsell (2009) geological rock-color chart, and its code is given in parenthesis (Yataco Capcha, 2020). The most used raw materials in the h and h1 layers were volcanic rocks, mainly tuff (n = 25), basalt (n = 5), and minerals like quartz (n = 13), chert (n = 13) (
to a naked eye (Figures 10(K)-(K’)). Remarkable are nine shaped tools, among which are two made on flake-blanks of volcanic rock (
Nami, 2019), probably used as knives or side-scrapers are illustrated in Figures 10(B)-(B’), Figures 10(L)-(L’); also, a denticulate tool with abrupt retouch (
pieces depicted in
and shatter (
Two partially flaked bifaces respectively (Figures 10(C)-(C’), Figures 10(G)- (G’)) was flaked on a moderate yellow-green (5G 5/2) andesitic volcanic tuff rock with microfractures filled with milky quartz. It also exhibited some fissures and a non-regular conchoidal fracture. The latter, illustrated in the Figures 10(C)-(C’), Figures 10(G)-(G’), shows a diagonal -possibly a perverse fracture as defined by Crabtree (1972)—and one of its faces retains ~35% - 40% cortex of the blank used. By virtue of the flake-scars, they were likely chipped by direct hard-percussion flaking (Callahan, 1979; Nami, 1986, 2017) on a very pale orange (10YR 8/2) micro porphyritic volcanic tuff. As experimentally demonstrated, due to the raw material flaws and the fracture patterns, both were possibly rejected during the reduction process (Callahan, 1979; Nami, 1986, 1988, 2017; among others).
Most debitage consists of secondary and tertiary flakes of different materials (n = 14). Only two are primary flakes on basalt (
As show in
Finally, despite the fact that no systematic functional analyses were made, it is worth mentioning that some pieces observed with a binocular microscope showed semi-lunar micro-flakes visible at 10× to 50×. Being aware that several causes may produce diverse micro-flakes on the edge of lithic implements (Figures 10(L)-(L’), Figures 10(N)-(N’)), it is interesting to point out that similar damage on an edge might have been due to sawing and cutting (Tringham et al., 1974; Odell & Odell-Vereecken, 1980; Stemp et al., 2016: Fig. 1). Similarly, the strongly rounded and ground edge parallel observable on the chopping tool’s edge (dotted line in Figures 10(K)-(K’)) might have resulted from its use with abrasive particles (Brink, 1978a, 1978b; Hayden, 1979a).
From h1, the study of MacNeish’s field-notes at the RSPIA allowed us to add two pieces to the previously examined materials identified as anthropogenic (Yataco Capcha, 2011: p. 260), resulting in a total of 18 pieces. Because these finds were the subject of controversy (Dillehay, 1985; Lynch, 1983; Rick, 1988) and never reviewed in detail, we provide their precise origin and descriptions. Five pieces of chipping waste were made on volcanic rocks (
Technological remarks can be made regarding the reduction sequence based on some of the artifacts described above (Tostevin, 2011). When recognized, the blanks for manufacturing the unifacial tools illustrated in
In layer i, the excavators reported three supposed activity areas containing bones, burned sectors, and lithic artifacts (MacNeish, 1979: pp. 27-29; MacNeish et al., 1983: pp. 141-143). To determine their possible human modification, each piece was reviewed with special care and detail. The scrutinized specimens were analyzed as shown in the
From layer i1 (
Four pieces from layer j curated at the MAA-UNMSM are as follows: a “tufa flake chopper” (
Finally, four specimens excavated from layer k were identified and carefully analyzed (
From the study, we conclude that the largest number of stone remains coming from layers h and h1 are human-made. They are morpho-technologically similar, without showing significant differences, and characterized by simply unifacially trimmed tools, mostly notched, and denticulate. In general, they are modified flakes of medium and large size, and larger than those found in the overlying layers g and h. The archaeological record from the latter belongs to the human occupations living in Ayacucho during the early Holocene (MacNeish et al., 1980; Yataco Capcha, 2011; Yataco Capcha et al., 2021). The artifacts from layers h and h1 were crafted with similar traditional techniques for making stone tools (see Nami, 2019, 2021). The presence of a few artifacts flaked on both faces also suggests knowledge of bifacial flaking. We suggest that because of their simplicity, minimum work, time, and energy was invested for manufacturing the pieces. It is notable that the lithic artifacts from h andh1 were made on diverse rocks, possibly selected for their flaking properties, varying from good to excellent, and obtained and transported from sources located outside the cave. The obsidian and the flint-like materials have the best quality for flaking; despite having good properties for making tools, the remaining material are not the most favorable from the viewpoint of workability (Callahan, 1979; Nami, 2015).
Concerning the remains from layers i to k, we conclude that they are rocky chunks that fell down the cave’s walls and roof, and in a few cases, are naturefacts or geofacts. An exception is a core found in i1 possibly mistakenly attributed to that layer, or the result of vertical migration from the upper levels (e.g., Cahen et al., 1979; Domínguez-Solera, 2010; Gifford-Gonzalez et al., 1985; Villa, 1982).
With the available material, we try to get the most out of the legacy collection for the study. The materials were reordered, classified, and contextualized according to the records of the MacNeish excavations archived in the Peabody Museum, a task never done before by anyone. At the Peabody Museum, we were able to obtain data to control and contextualize the studied sample. Additionally, we add fifteen lithic pieces of anthropic nature exhumed in layers h and h1 that were not previously recorded (Yataco Capcha, 2011: pp. 247-271). We have also had the opportunity to carefully document, contextualize, and review bone remains coming from the lower levels of the cave (e.g.
Based on the finds from layers h and h1 and i to k, from a cultural-history perspective, MacNeish respectively defined the “Ayacucho” and “Pacaicasa” complexes. Both constructs supposedly witnessed a South American human presence older than Clovis in North America (MacNeish, 1969, 1979; MacNeish et al., 1980, 1981). Hence, since the late 1960s and early 1970s, Pikimachay has been controversial (Lynch, 1974, 1992). Most critiques pointed to the poorly reported data, which lacked careful analysis and documentation (Dillehay, 1985; Rick, 1988).
We are aware of the limitations of studying collections from old excavations. However, this sort of appraisal is useful for addressing the peopling of South America (e.g. Chichkoyan, 2019; Chichkoyan et al., 2017; Cornero & Neves, 2011; Cornero et al., 2014; Neves et al., 1999; Neves & Piló, 2008; Politis et al., 2011). In our case, MacNeish’s field-notes curated at the Peabody Museum were detailed enough to evaluate and contextualize the scrutinized sample with a high degree of temporal and spatial confidence. Besides, considering the aforementioned geological context, the records from the lowest strata have both stratigraphic and chronological coherence. Hence, a certain degree of integrity. In this regard, the Pikimachay sedimentary fill showed large blocks falling from the cave’s structure during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition and Early Holocene. These blocks are significant because they sealed the cave’s lower strata. A similar phenomenon occurred in other caves with evidence of early human occupations in South America, such as Fell Cave, Cueva del Lago Sofía, Cueva del Medio, all in Patagonia (Bird, 1946, 1988; Nami, 1987, 2019; Prieto, 1991), and other places in the Andean cordillera, such as Gruta del Indio and Agua de la Cueva (García, 1998, 2003; Lagiglia, 1977). Based on radiocarbon dates, apparently, there were no significant stratigraphic unconformities allowing the mix of materials from different occupations (e.g. Feathers & Nami, 2018). The available radiocarbon information shows no chronological discontinuity in the lowest strata. Also, their quasi-lithified and/or cemented state acted as a matrix embedding the findings, protecting them from further perturbations.
Stone tools analysis and classification has certain inherent biases and ambiguities (Whittaker et al., 1998), especially in those contexts attributed to the oldest human occupations in the Americas (e.g. Meltzer, 2009; Fiedel, 2017, 2022). After the examination of the lithic remains from Pikimachay, however, we conclude that the examined samples from h and h1 are human-made. Important lines of evidence include the many blanks that show multiple flake-scars and ridges on their dorsal faces, with clear evidence of having been detached from cores, unambiguous shaped tools, and the presence of bifacial flaking. Extremely important too is the evidence that the ancient knappers carefully selected raw material from various sources. The analyzed samples from both layers showed morpho-technological homogeneity, likely resulting from a series of re-occupations of the cave over a certain period. These occupations are not distinguishable from each other. Conversely, the lithics from i through k are the product of natural actions (Peacock, 1991; Raynal et al., 1995), mainly chunks coming from the cave’s walls and roof. Most of these objects show no flaking, and only some may have apparent flake-scars. They are isolated, however, lacking attributes that could indicate their human origin; among them, distinct patterns or continuity in their distribution of flaking. Hence, we considered these pieces as geofacts or naturefacts. Based on our analysis, the lithic artifacts coming from h and h1 may have witnessed the presence of humans that inhabited Pikimachay during the terminal Pleistocene. It is significant to point out that they are absolutely different in shape and technology that the artifacts from the Early to Late Holocene human occupations both found at Pikimachay and other places in the Ayacucho Basin (León & Yataco Capcha, 2008; Yataco Capcha & Nami, 2016; Yataco Capcha, 2011, 2020; Yataco Capcha et al., 2021). Then, we reject the idea that the true flaked objects might come due to vertical migration from the upper levels. On the other hand, the fractured stones coming from the underlying layers are simple chunks and naturefacts or geofacts. Hence they do not represent evidence for an earlier human occupation. Presently, the available radiocarbon data suggest that the record from h and h1 has a Terminal Pleistocene age. At least in h and h1, we do not know if the dated materials had an unequivocal human origin. However, we can presume that the archaeological finds from both layers would have been produced between the occurrence of the rockfalls at about 10,000 to 14,000 years before the present. However, as is usual in early archaeological contexts (e.g. Dillehay et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2015, 2017; Nami, 2019; Politis et al., 2019), to establish a reliable and precise chronology it is crucial to obtain new dates from both layers utilizing modern dating methods, especially for this kind of site (Deviese et al., 2018). Then, considering our unsuccessful attempts to re-date the layer h, until new radiocarbon data is obtained, the aforementioned chronology must be taken as not definitive. Diverse kinds of radiometric or geo- chronological dating with new methodological perspectives are necessary to cope with this issue (e.g. Feathers et al., 2010; Politis et al., 2019; Feathers & Nami, 2018, Nami et al., 2020).
As seen above, in association with the stone remains were Late Pleistocene fossil bones. In many cases, their primary relationship in archaeological sites is uncertain. Osseous remains are subjected to a myriad of modifications (Lyman, 1994); mainly by predators and scavengers involved in the site formation process (Binford, 1983). Experimental research showed that under certain environmental conditions, death assemblages in the wild may disappear without a trace when predators can move freely and feed without disturbance. However, some bone fragments survive at archaeological sites because they were possibly unintentionally protected by human presence. Actually, on occasions, their treatment made them less attractive to predators (Wadley, 2020). Considering this premise and the taphonomic observations (Nami et al., 2021) only some bones from the Late Pleistocene levels of Pikimachay Cave, layer h, showed human modifications. This fact reinforces the results of the lithics analysis presented above.
The colonization and spread of human in the Americas has always been a major field of archaeological interest. For several reasons, one of the most controversial issues is the timing of the events and the reliability of the evidence (see Meltzer, 2013; Politis et al., 2019; Politis & Prates, 2018, 2019). Specifically, this occurred during the last millennia of the Pleistocene and its transition to the Holocene at 10,000 years before the present (Gibbard & Head, 2010; Head & Gibbard, 2015; Walker et al., 2018), and ultimately the Americas were entirely inhabited from the northern to the southern ends, suggesting that the colonization process was practically complete at that time (Graf, 2013; Lothrop et al., 2011; Nami, 2014, 2021). The archaeological record shows that there was cultural and adaptive diversity in terms of subsistence and technological pursuits (Dillehay, 2008a, 2008b, 2009; Meltzer, 2009; Nami, 2014, 2019; Politis et al., 2016; Politis & Prates, 2018). In that period, with a broad distribution all across non-glaciated North America up to northern Mexico, Clovis was the oldest fluted point manifestation (Bradley et al., 2010; Ellis 2013). Almost coeval in its origins, and probably beginning in eastern North America, the “fishtail” or Fell points had an extraordinary distribution from Mesoamerica to the southern tip of South America (see Nami, 2021, and references cited there). Archaeological records witnessing human occupations prior to Clovis have been controversial for a long time (Adovasio & Page, 2002), mainly due to the ambiguities that some of the claimed earliest sites presented, especially those dating ≥15,000 to 20,000 years before the present (Borrero, 2016; Haynes, 2015; Politis et al., 2019; Politis & Prates, 2019).
Notwithstanding the above, a notable fact is that across the Americas several reliable sites are yielding pre-Clovis records, both in North and South America (Davis et al., 2019, 2020; Waters et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2018; among others). In South America, several sites have yielded evidence of human occupations older than ≥11,000 to 10,000 years before the present, a timeframe with indubitable broadly dispersed hunter-gatherers in this sub-continent. The comparison of artifacts from each one of these alleged pre-Fell sites (e.g. Boëda et al., 2014, 2016; Bryan et al., 1978; Dillehay, 1997, 2000; Dillehay et al., 2015, 2017; Ochsenius & Gruhn, 1979; Parenti, 2001; Politis et al., 2016; Pino & Astorga, 2020; Vialou, 2005; among others) is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, in the central and southern Andes, various sites pre-date the occupations with Fell points. During the last decades, a growing number of findings suggest there were foragers living there at a similar time. Then, in this section, our comparisons are made with assemblages dated by reliable laboratories in the last few years. Recent investigations at Huaca Prieta in northern Peru revealed a simple stone technology and other remains associated with uncalibrated radiocarbon dates ranging between ~12,400 and ~13,000 years before the present (Dillehay et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2017:
Despite the small sample size, the lithics from Pikimachay were made using distinct stone working techniques (Nami, 1994, 2010a; Schiffer & Skibo, 1987). In fact, they were made with a different traditional technological knowledge than the later known regional foragers used to construct well-made projectile points. Often, these later projectile point tool styles include well-executed lithic and bone tools (e.g. Cattáneo, 2006; Nami, 2010b, 2019; Yataco Capcha & Nami, 2016). Except for two pieces (Figures 10(B)-(B’), Figures 10(G)-(G’)) that because their shapes might belong to occupations belonging to the last millennium of the Pleistocene (Yataco Capcha & Nami, 2016) the artifacts are very different to the lithic assemblages accompanying Fell points (Cattáneo, 2006; Nami, 2014, 2019). Such it has been discussed, they are quite similar to the pre-Fell artifacts from the Andean region in Peru, and Chile. These technical differences would represent a previous colonizing population sharing traditional technological knowledge with prevailing simply-made lithic implements. They may be accompanied or not by well-made projectile points or bifacial tools. They arrived before those foragers using the “fishtail” or just “Fell” points that—like Clovis in North America (Bradley et al., 2010)—stand out for its wide continental distribution (Nami, 2021). Initially, it was thought that these fishtail points were distributed from Mesoamerica to the southern tip of South America (e.g. Bird & Cooke, 1979; Nami, 2014). Recently, however, it was shown that the fishtailed points from eastern North America and fishtail points share remarkable techno-morphological similarities. Fishtail points exhibit a continuous distribution from where to at least northern South America and beyond the equatorial line (Nami, 2021) that following diverse paths—mainly along the Atlantic coast and the Andean Cordillera—with some variants even in southern Patagonia (e.g. Bird, 1946, 1988; Nami, 2014, 2021).
In summary, the appraisal of the legacy collection recovered a half-century ago at Pikimachay allowed us to conclude that the lithic remains from h-h1 are anthropic, while those from the lower levels are not. Because of the true human-made nature of the flaked artifacts, stratigraphic position, the features of the sediments where they were embedded, likely chronology, and similarities with other possibly coeval lithic assemblages, the Pikimachay record might be a candidate witnessing possible Paleo American foragers living in Ayacucho during Post Glacial Maximum times in the South Central Andes and the pre-Fell times. We hope that further research at the legacy collections and field-work at Pikimachay will expand the sample of artifacts and faunal remains recovered, along with our understanding of early human colonization and lifeways in the South Central Andes.
We are indebted to: Ryan Wheeler, director of the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology; Jorge Silva, former director of the Museo de Arqueología y Antropología de la UNMSM for their help during the study of the MacNeish collections; Marla Taylor (curator of collections) of Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology and Susan deFrance for their invaluable help during the bone sample study for dating; José Lanata (Instituto de Investigaciones en diversidad Cultural y Procesos de Cambio) for their invaluable support; geologist C. Toledo (Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos) for his help in classifying the rocks; Veronica Ortiz and Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú (MNAAHP) for allowing reproduction of the images illustrated in Figures 9(A)-(D); also to Masato Sakai, Yuichi Matsumoto, Go Matsumoto and Atsushi Yamamoto of Yamagata University for his support. Ruth Gruhn, Ryan Wheeler and Dan Sandweiss provided invaluable editing of an early draft of this paper.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Yataco Capcha, J., & Nami, H. G. (2022). A New View on the Late Pleistocene Lithic Remains from Pikimachay Cave, South Central Peru. Archaeological Discovery, 10, 282-334. https://doi.org/10.4236/ad.2022.104010