THE APPLICATION OF PHYTOLITH AND STARCH GRAIN ANALYSIS TO UNDERSTANDING FORMATIVE PERIOD SUBSISTENCE, RITUAL, AND TRADE ON THE TARACO PENINSULA, HIGHLAND BOLIVIA ___________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri, Columbia ___________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts ___________________________________________________________________ By AMANDA LEE LOGAN Supervisor: Dr. Deborah M. Pearsall AUGUST 2006 Dedicated to the memory of my grandmother Joanne Marie Higgins 1940-2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a great number of people who have helped in this process in passing or in long, detailed conversations, and everything in between. First and foremost, many thanks to my advisor, Debby Pearsall, for creative and inspired guidance, and for taking the time to talk over everything from the smallest detail to the biggest challenges. Debby introduced me to the world of phytoliths, and then to the wonders of starch grains, and encouraged me to find and pursue the issues that drive me. My committee has been very helpful and patient, and made my oral exams and defense far more enjoyable then expected—Dr. Christine Hastorf, Dr. Bob Benfer, and Dr. Randy Miles. Dr. Benfer was crucial in helping me sort through the statistical applications. I also benefited tremendously from conversations with and advice from my cohorts in the MU Paleoethnobotany lab, or as we are better known, the “Pearsall Youth”— Neil Duncan, Shawn Collins, Meghann O’Brien, Tom Hart, and Nicole Little. Dr. Karol Chandler-Ezell gave me great advice on calcium oxalate and chemical processing. Dr. Todd VanPool graciously provided much needed advice on the statistical applications. Being a part of the Taraco Archaeological Project has brought many good ideas to mind, taught me a lot about Bolivian and Andean archaeology, and has truly been a pleasure. Many thanks to the whole TAP team, especially Dr. Christine Hastorf, Maria Bruno, Jose Capriles, Dr. Kate Moore, Bill Whitehead, Dr. Matt Bandy, and Facundo Llusco. Christine Hastorf has waited patiently for good results, provided the most rigorously collected samples I could hope for, and most importantly, showed interest at every level of my project. She provided me with coca samples in 2004, washed the artifact residues in the 2005 field season, and provided me with a book on Bolivian ii grasses. Maria Bruno was instrumental in teaching me many things ethnobotanical in Bolivia, let me take samples from her voucher specimens and from her field soil collection, as well as providing much needed information and advice throughout the course of this project. Finally, the comparative phytolith work on Andean plants conducted by Alejandra Korstanje (Universidad Nacional de Tucumán) and loaned to the MU Paleoethnobotany lab was extremely valuable for my purposes. As always, thanks to Shannon King for support in every way and on every level, from the first applications to the final draft. Many thanks go to my family, especially my father, John Logan, and my aunt, Donna Logan, for encouraging me to get this far and to keep going. Branka Hrvoj listened to a lot of phytolith talk, and helped me stay positive. Special thanks to Dr. Catherine D’Andrea (Simon Fraser University) for piquing and developing my interest in archaeobotany, getting me here in the first place, and supporting my pursuits ever since. Discussions with many of the participants in the 2005 Chacmool Archaeological Conference, especially Sonia Quon and Dr. Linda Perry, were helpful in disentangling the complexities of this data. Most of the comparative plant samples used in this study were collected at the Missouri Botanical Garden, thanks to Dr. Jim Solomon. Some grass and sedge species were collected at the University of Missouri Columbia Herbarium, courtesy of Dr. Robin Kennedy. Thanks also to Dr.R.L. Lyman who kindly gave the thesis the final once-over. This research was supported by an NSF grant to Christine A. Hastorf, for this I am truly grateful; this would have been only half the project otherwise. I also received additional support through research assistantships from NSF grants to Deborah M. Pearsall. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures................................................................................................................... vii Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Archaeological Background ..........................................................................4 Introduction................................................................................................................4 Tiwanaku....................................................................................................................4 Models of the Development of Tiwanaku .................................................................6 Defining the State ..............................................................................................6 Three Models of the Development of Tiwanaku ...............................................7 Archaeological Predictions ..............................................................................10 Antecedents: Formative Period Archaeology in the Lake Titicaca Basin ...............11 Early Formative Period....................................................................................12 Middle Formative Period .................................................................................14 Late (Upper) Formative Period........................................................................16 Archaeobotanical Issues in the Formative Period....................................................19 Taraco Archaeological Project.................................................................................25 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................28 Chapter 3: General Methodology and Results..............................................................30 Introduction..............................................................................................................30 Calcium Oxalate.......................................................................................................30 Comparative Plant Studies.......................................................................................30 Processing Methods .........................................................................................31 Comparative Plants ..........................................................................................31 Archaeological Samples...........................................................................................33 Soil Samples.....................................................................................................33 Artifact Residues..............................................................................................35 Calcium Oxalate Evaluation ....................................................................................36 General Results ........................................................................................................38 Chapter 4: Tubers and Native Plants on the Taraco Peninsula..................................41 Introduction..............................................................................................................41 Quinoa and Wild Resources.....................................................................................41 Andean Tubers.........................................................................................................43 Background......................................................................................................44 Comparative plant studies................................................................................51 Archaeological results—Starch Residues................................................................55 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................58 iv Chapter 5: Hallucinogenic and Exotic Plants on the Taraco Peninsula.....................60 Introduction..............................................................................................................60 Hallucinogenic Plants ..............................................................................................60 Background......................................................................................................61 Comparative Work...........................................................................................63 Exotic Plants ............................................................................................................70 Archaeological Results ............................................................................................70 Phytolith Residues on Artifacts .......................................................................71