Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Chavín Heartland: An Archaeometric Study from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BCE), Ancash, Perú

Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Chavín Heartland: An Archaeometric Study from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BCE), Ancash, Perú | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Chavín Heartland: An Archaeometric Study from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BCE), Ancash, Perú Rachel Johnson, Bebel Ibarra Asencios, Jason Nesbitt, Julia Sjödahl, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559670/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 22 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Canchas Uckro is one of several small-scale settlements surrounding the ceremonial and urban center of Chavín de Huántar (c. 1100 − 400 BCE). In this paper, we explore the relationship between these two sites through an archaeometric study of pottery production at Canchas Uckro (c. 1100 − 800 BCE). Specifically, we combine portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) and thin-section petrography to characterize technological style in a sample of 56 sherds. Our analyses identified 12 distinct petrographic groups, with most of the pottery (85% of the assemblage) reflecting two local technological styles. Among these local materials are several vessels featuring zone-hatching, which were previously thought to be imported from the eastern highlands or upper Amazon. A small percentage of ceramic fine wares representing both geochemical and technological outliers (2–4%) point to probable inter-regional exchange, while a larger group of undecorated ceramics (~ 10%) suggest more frequent intra-regional interactions. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that Canchas Uckro's ceramic production was independent of Chavín de Huántar, with its inhabitants participating in distinct networks of intra- and interregional exchange likely involving the movement of people, ceramics, technological practices, and ideas. Andes Chavín exchange and interaction portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF) ceramic petrography Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Introduction During the period between c. 1100 and 400 BCE, Chavín de Huántar was a major ceremonial center and urban settlement (Burger 1984, 1992; Rick 2008; Sayre and Rosenfeld 2023). Archaeological survey has also demonstrated that Chavín de Huántar was surrounded by numerous contemporary settlements distributed along the Mosna, Puccha, and Huaritambo rivers (Figure 1) (Burger 1982; Diessl 2004; Ibarra Asencios 2004; Nesbitt 2023; Tello 1960). While there are some similarities in architecture and material culture, the question of how these nearby sites articulated with Chavín de Huántar in socioeconomic terms is unclear. Previous researchers investigating pottery production speculated that neighboring settlements supplied Chavín de Huántar with ceramic vessels (Druc 2004: 360), implying economic dependencies based on regional ceramic exchange. In this paper, we aim to address how nearby sites articled with Chavín de Huántar through an archaeometric ceramic study, leveraging a light microscopy-based (digital microscope) sampling strategy with portable X-Ray fluorescence and thin-section petrography, to characterize pottery production at Canchas Uckro, a Chavín-contemporary site located approximately 25 km northeast of Chavín de Huántar. Canchas Uckro’s proximity to Chavín de Huántar, as well as its positioning near exchange routes with the eastern highlands and upper Amazon (Nesbitt et al. 2021), provide an opportunity to examine socio-economic relationships and regional identities from the perspective of the Chavín heartland. Our study focuses on ceramic technological style, which is a byproduct of both raw material choices and the physical steps of manufacture, as well as the social and cultural norms embedded within the learned practices of craft production (Dobres 2000; Lave and Wenger 1991; Lechtman and Merrill 1977). Although some production variation is typical (e.g. Gandon et al. 2020), social parameters and shared technological knowledge tend to limit production methods, reinforcing and perpetuating technological traditions over time. One way technological style is maintained is through the teaching and shared use of particular paste recipes, a technological feature that is generally more resistant to change, compared to superficial stylistic choices, like vessel form and finishing (Gosselain 2000; 2008; Roux and Courty 2013). In the Andes, potting communities often utilize multiple clay recipes (Arnold 2000; Druc 1996; Ramón 2013). By characterizing specific paste recipes and related technological features and comparing these traits with regional stylistic patterns, we aim to trace social and exchange networks within the Chavín heartland. Geographic Setting Canchas Uckro is a two-tiered platform that functioned as a ceremonial center and village settlement between c. 1100 and 800 BCE (Nesbitt 2023), located within the Conchucos Region between the Cordillera Blanca and the Marañón River (see León Gómez 1996). Orogenic uplift has faulted and folded the region into complex, repeating layers of Jurassic and Cretaceous-aged sedimentary rocks, dominated by dark-gray shales, siltstones, sandstones, quartzites, and limestones (Wilson et al. 1995). The sediments filling narrow valley floors consist primarily of Quaternary glacial deposits representing local and up-river geologic formations. To the west, the high peaks of the Cordillera Blanca are comprised almost entirely of late Jurassic-aged shales, intruded by a Middle to Late Miocene-aged (8.2-5 Ma) granitic to granodioritic pluton (Wise and Nobel 2003). Further east lies the Marañon Supergroup, a thick Precambrian basement rock characterized by heavily-altered gneisses and schists that extend south and east into Huánuco and the Cordillera Oriental (Figure 2). The site of Canchas Uckro is located within a bowl-shaped valley on a hill of Santa Carhuaz siltstone and sandstone. There is a limestone ridge to the west (Jumasha Formation) and a slate/quartzite ridge to the east (Chimu Formation). The steeply-incised quebradas framing the triangular landform on which the site is situated are prone to landslides and debris flows. We suspect this placement was intentional (Nesbitt 2023), mirroring Chavín’s placement at the confluence of the Mosna and Wacheqsa Rivers in a similarly geologically precarious landscape (Burger 1992; Contreras 2015: 517; Rick 2005; 2008, 9–10). Much of Canchas Uckro’s immediate geological landscape is composed of sedimentary rock, with relatively few volcanic outcrops. One exception is a rhyolitic tuff identified near Antamina (Bodenlos and Ericksen 1955), a major copper mine approximately 11 kilometers south of the site. This area is notably adjacent to the Inca Road, which connects Conchucos with La Unión and the upper Huallaga drainage (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Further south, near the headwaters of the Mosna River, the Chicama Formation reportedly contains interbedded layers of volcanic tuff and ignimbrites (Cobbing et al. 1981; Cobbing et al. 1996), corresponding to the dominant ceramic technological traditions from Chavín de Huántar (Druc 2004). Site Background Canchas Uckro was one of many Chavín-contemporary sites in the Conchucos region. Most of these sites are considerably smaller than Chavín de Huántar, measuring 1-5 hectares in area and consisting of 1 or 2 platforms (Diessl 2004; Nesbitt 2023). Canchas Uckro was one of the larger sites in the region, and around 1100/1000 BCE, may have even been a peer center with the early phases of Chavín de Huántar (Nesbitt and Ibarra Asencios 2023; see also Kembel 2008). The site’s two-tiered platform measures approximately 3 m in height. Archaeological excavations suggest Canchas Uckro was constructed in two building phases. In the first phase (c. 1100-950/900 BCE), the platform was likely round, similar to other monumental sites in the eastern and northern highlands (Nesbitt 2023). Associated with the summit of the first phase platform were two hut-like domestic structures (Structures 1 and 2, Figure 3A) (Nesbitt et al. 2021). In Structure 1, we recovered a semi-complete vessel from above a hearth (Figure 3B and 3D), radiocarbon dated to c.1100-1000 BCE (Nesbitt and Ibarra Asencios 2023: 174). This find is notable because the vessel form, surface finishing, and incised design closely resemble Wairajirca Phase ceramics from archaeological sites in the upper Huallaga drainage (see discussion below). The second architectural phase was characterized by the construction of a new rectangular platform around 950/900-800 BCE, covering the original platform. Ceramic Assemblage Canchas Uckro’s pottery is dominated by three forms: neckless ollas (an incurving cooking pot) (48%), jars (12.6%), and open bowls (37.7%) (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Bottles are present, though rare, and include both long-neck and stirrup-spout varieties. The proportion of different vessel types resembles those reported from contemporary assemblages at Chavín de Huántar during the Urabarriu Phase (c. 1000/900-850/800 BCE) (Burger 1984; Mesía-Montenegro 2022: 889). While there are broad similarities in these sites’ ceramic assemblages, there are also key differences. For instance, Canchas Uckro’s neckless ollas are dominated by collared styles, which often exhibit sharply carinated forms that are entirely absent from Chavín de Huántar (Burger 1984) and other sites in the north-central highlands (e,g., Burger 1985). While some decorations, like cane stamping and incised horizontal lines, are typical highland motifs, nearly a quarter of the decorated assemblage (n=26 of 104) exhibit a distinctive type of zoned-hatching that is one of the defining decorative motifs associated with the Wairajirca Phase (CU65, CU83, CU89, CU93, CU94, CU114, CU115; Figure 6) from the upper Huallaga (Nesbitt et al. 2021). These Wairajirca-related vessels at Canchas Uckro are unslipped, monochrome, and fired in reducing conditions that produce dark gray or brown surfaces. In the upper Huallaga, these designs first appear around 1400 BCE (Kanezaki et al. 2021) and exhibit strong stylistic ties to Upper Amazon pottery through carinated vessel forms, well-polished surfaces, and geometric, incised designs commonly filled with red-ochre pigment (DeBoer 2003; Kanezaki et al. 2021; Izumi 1971; Lathrap 1970; 1971; Lathrap and Roys 1963). The most common motif is exterior zoned-hatching: a combination of vertical and horizontal bands filled with straight-line or diagonal incisions (Izumi 1971; Izumi et al. 1972; Izumi and Terada 1972; Tello 1943: XIX). Because of the ubiquity of zoned-hatched pottery in the upper Huallaga region (e.g. Brown 2022:233; Izumi 1971; Izumi and Terada 1972; Kanezaki et al. 2021) these ceramics were thought to be imported to Canchas Uckro from the Huánuco region (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Similar zoned-hatched ceramics have been reported from Huaricoto in the Callejón de Huaylas (Burger 1985: 511–12), as well as Muquijirca, near the confluence of the Puccha and Marañón Rivers (Jordi Benites Segura, personal communication), suggesting these styles were widely circulated between c. 1400-900/850 BCE (Nesbitt et al. 2021: 122). Still rarer decorated styles point to additional connections with the eastern Andes. For instance, Canchas Uckro’s “pendant triangle” (CU63 and CU80) and dashed/dotted bar motifs (CU92 and CU71) strongly resemble Wayra Incised styles described from Chawin Punta and Kunturay in Cerro de Pasco (Brown 2022: 433), Wairajirca phase assemblages from Kotosh (Izumi and Sono 1963: Plate 88; Izumi and Terada 1972: Plate 42), and Jancao (Kanezaki et al. 2021: 245–46; Matsumoto 2020: 55) in the Huánuco Basin, and the Cave of the Owls Fine Ware, near Tingo María (Lathrap and Roys 1963, Fig 5. i). Other possible imports include two different instances of incised black bottle chambers. Black wares, while known from Chavín de Huántar (Burger 1984; Lumbreras 1993), are rare at Canchas Uckro. Methods To investigate ceramic production and exchange at Canchas Uckro, we developed a broad-based sampling strategy, grounded in reflective light microscopy, followed by portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) and qualitative-thin section petrography. The procedures for each analytical phase are outlined below. Reflective Light Microscopy and Sampling A handheld DinoLite microscope (Model # AM4815ZTL) was used to conduct reflective light microscopy (RLM) and develop preliminary technological categories. Analysis followed established analytical procedures to differentiate ceramic pastes based on mineral and rock inclusions, temper size sorting, and grain distribution/compactness (Druc 2015). The RLM sample (n=160 of 666 diagnostic sherds, Nesbitt et al. 2021: 117) represents a mix of domestic and public contexts dated to 1100-800 BCE. We prioritized diagnostic sherds, incorporating both undecorated neckless ollas and short neck jars believed to represent the local assemblage, as well as less common decorated styles and suspected imports. Six preliminary paste groups were identified, including (1) felsic sand (n=59), (2) fine felsic sand (n=51), (3) tuff/igenous (n=33), (5) slate (n=11), (5) schist (n=4), and (6) a possible fine-paste outlier (n=1). For further discussion on the results of RLM, see Online Resource 1. These preliminary groups served as the basis for a stratified random sample (n=56) representing Canchas Uckro’s ceramic technological diversity. The sample incorporated at least 10 representatives from each of the three most common paste types from different site contexts to counter bias introduced by rare inclusions and generate a sufficiently large sample to generalize the results to the assemblage (Bishop et al. 1988; Rice 2015, 247; Wilson 1978). A total of 20 sherds in the sample are decorated, twelve of which possess zoned-hatching (n=7), modeling (n=1), pendant triangle (n=2), and other designs (n=2) possibly related to the upper Huallaga (see Figure 3); these materials were preferentially incorporated into the sample to determine whether or not these ceramics represented imported wares. Semi-Quantitative portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) We conducted portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) analysis at the Tulane Center for Archaeology using a Bruker Tracer 5i. Though pXRF spectrometers generally have higher limits of detection (LOD) compared to instrumental neutron activation (INAA), inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and desk XRF (Speakman et al. 2011), a growing number of archaeometric studies demonstrate pXRF can accurately identify the same meaningful geochemical trends (Adlington et al. 2020; Frahm 2018; LeMoine and Halperin 2021; Mitchell et al. 2012). Furthermore, though pXRF is sensitive to sample preparation and results can be affected by surface coatings, surface topography, and temper size and distribution (Hunt and Speakman 2015), taking measurements from multiple sample regions can ensure acceptable precision and produce results that accurately represent bulk composition (Frahm 2018; Holmqvist 2017). We employed published analytical procedures following Holmqvist (2017) and Shugar (2013). All of Canchas Uckro’s sherds were assayed at a minimum of 3 points (interior, exterior, and freshly cut surfaces, where available), for 120 seconds (60 seconds first beam, 60 seconds second beam), for a total minimum exposure time of 6 minutes. All measurements were taken using the Bruker Analytics mud-rock calibration. Recent advancements in pXRF hardware and software have produced more precise internal calibrations that enhance semi-quantitative characterization of archaeological materials (Frahm 2018; Holmqvist 2017; Liritzis et al. 2020). A semi-quantitative approach facilitates this study’s relative sourcing goals – that is, to assess assemblage geochemical variation and characterize the degree and extent of pottery distribution networks. To calculate elemental concentrations, we averaged all measurements for each detected element for each specimen. During data processing, we calculated the relative standard error for each element using the Bruker mud-rock calibration and removed elements with a Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) >20%. We then converted the averaged parts-per-million (ppm) data to log (base 10) to standardize data and reduce the magnitude of variation between major, minor, and trace elements (Baxter and Freestone 2006; Harbottle 1976: 45). We then conducted hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) to evaluate potential clustering trends, principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce data dimensionality, and HCA of the identified PCA components. These compositional clusters effectively hypothesize group memberships to be tested by more rigorous statistics, like discriminant function analysis (DFA) via Mahalanobis distance (Baxter 2001: 135; Glascock 1992; Neff 1994). Mahalanobis distance calculates the probability that an individual case belongs to a group by removing samples from their initial clusters (as determined by HCA) and proposing/testing new group membership based on statistical probability, which we set at >5% (Glascock 1992: 18, 20). Our final groups are displayed using the final canonical discriminant functions (CDFs) (Figure 3). A full description of statistical procedures is available in Online Resource 2. Qualitative Petrography Fifty-three sherds were analyzed via ceramic thin-section petrography. Quality Thin Sections prepared all thin sections to the standard 30 µm thickness. Thin-section slides were analyzed by the first author at the Tulane Center for Archaeology under plane-polarized light (PPL) and cross-polarized light (XPL). Ceramic paste descriptions were prepared following a modified Whitbread method (Whitbread 1986; Whitbread 1995), as proposed by Quinn (2013), characterizing the clay matrix, voids, and aplastic mineral/rock inclusions. Visual charts helped estimate the prevalence of identified inclusions. Analysis was conducted blind, without reference to archaeological context, geochemical group, or ceramic style. Ceramic petro-groups were then linked to probable resource zones through comparisons with published geologic reports (Cueva Tintaya and Torres González 2024; Quispesivana Quispe 1996b; 1996a; Wilson et al 1995a; Wilson et al. 1995b), prior archaeological investigations and petrographic studies from nearby sites (Druc 2001; 2004; 2016), and our own field surveys. Although the ethnographic literature indicates pottery manufacture typically occurs within thirty minutes of raw material sources (<3 km) (Druc 2013: 493), walking distances exceeding one hour are not uncommon for highland potters. Ethnoarchaeologists have documented raw material extraction at distances ~10-20 km (Ramón 1999: 226). Furthermore, prior ethnoarchaeological research in the southern Conchucos region found potters traveled up to four hours walking time to access specific raw material sources (Druc 2005; 2013: 499). Given the potential variability associated with raw material use (Druc 1996), we approach production through the concept of catchments: the geographic areas most likely associated with raw material extraction. We defined these zones using the spatial analyst distance accumulation tool, the hiking time function, and an SRTM digital elevation model to calculate approximate walking times. We use the 4 hour upper limit (Druc 2013) to define Canchas Uckro’s “local” catchment (~15-18 km) while areas within 10 walking hours (~26-40 km) were classified as regional, representing communities within a day’s walk (Contreras 2011), with whom the inhabitants of Canchas Uckro may have regularly interacted (see Figure 2). Results pXRF PCA and HCA identified two major compositional groups, roughly corresponding to the preliminary paste groups identified by RLM (Figure 4). Group 1 is associated with felsic sand, fine felsic sand, and tuff-tempered sherds, while Group 2 is associated with metamorphic pastes: slate, schist, and graphite (Figure 4), indicating there are at least two distinct production areas. Notably, all sherds with zoned-hatching motifs cluster with Group 1, the presumably local cluster. DFA reaffirmed the two compositional groups identified by PCA and HCA. These findings are statistically significant (Wilks’ λ < 0.001), indicating good separation between Group 1, Group 2, and various outlier groups. In general, Group 2 ceramics exhibit high quantities of strontium (Sr) and calcium (Ca), elements associated with canonical discriminant function 1 (CDF1), while Group 1 ceramics are loaded more heavily with elements associated with CDF2, e.g. yittrium (Y) (Figure 5). Several outlier groups correspond to both stylistic and technological outliers. Mahalanobis distance based on all statistically-utilized elements identified two samples as definitive outliers: CU102 and CU107. Thin-Section Petrography The results of petrographic analysis parallel and improve our understanding of the pXRF findings (see Figure 6). Petrographic study indicates the Group 1 geochemical cluster is primarily associated with a single petro-group (Felsic Sediment). The Group 1 cluster is also associated with two additional petrographic groups (Tuff and Altered Volcanics). Although pXRF was not able to fully separate these geochemically similar groups, they do form two generally-cohesive geochemical subclusters within the Group 1 cluster, indicative of relative compositional consistency (see dark blue clusters, Figure 4). Overall, just one artifact – CU86 – was potentially mis-grouped by pXRF. Though CU86 clusters with pXRF Group 2, it is classified as the dominant paste type, typically associated with Group 1 (Figure 6). Petrography confirms that the geochemical outliers identified during statistical analysis are also technological outliers, potentially with non-local origins. These findings largely support and highlight pXRF as an effective tool for identifying geochemical variability within this ceramic assemblage. Below, we summarize the defining technological features and associated implications for each petro-group. A summary of petrographic and geochemical data is provided in Table 1. Extended petrographic descriptions are available through the Tulane Center for Archaeology (see data availability statement). Local Technological Style Although abundance is not an unequivocal marker of local production (Day et al. 1999; Druc 2013; Heidke and Quinn 2009), the prevalence of the felsic tuff sediment (n=26, 49%) and its corresponding frequency in RLM suggests this paste recipe represents the dominant, if not local, technological style to Canchas Uckro. This group is characterized by moderately well-sorted inclusions of felsic to intermediate minerals, including quartz, plagioclase, opaques, hornblende, biotite, and tuff fragments with glassy to felsitic texture (Figure 7, I). Tuff fragments have a low frequency and are generally sub-angular to sub-rounded, suggesting they are potentially naturally occurring within the clay as a product of erosion. Although the rocks within the local procurement zone (e.g., 3.5-hour walking radius) are reportedly sedimentary, it is possible some facies may represent tuffaceous sandstones, in which tuff fragments are naturally occurring. Overall, the clay is well-mixed, and the associated vessels are well-made. They are Table 1 Ceramic Classification based on petrographic and geochemical data Petro-Group N (%) Forms and Decorations Minerology Geochemistry Source Area Felsic Tuff Sediment 26(49%) Collared ollas, open jars, bowls, punctation, zoned dots, Wairajirca pendant triangle, zoned-hatching quartz, green hornblende Group 1, Group 6 (CU117), Group 2 (CU86) Local Tuff (Glassy Pumice) 8(15%) Collared olla, open jar, zoned-hatching, zoned-hatching, zoned-dashing, pendant triangle plagioclase, tuff (glassy pumice), quartz, biotite, hornblende Group 1 Local? Quartz Muscovite Schist 3(6%) Non-diagnostic quartz-muscovite schist, quartz Group 2 Regional Slate 1 4(8%) Non-diagnostic slate, quartz, opaques, sandstone, orthoclase Group 2 Regional Graphite Slate 2(4%) Non-diagnostic opaque (graphite) slate, calcite, sandstone, slate Group 2, Group 7 (CU118) Regional Vitric Tuff 1(2%) Carinated bowl tuff, quartz, plagioclase Group 3 Regional/Import? Slate 2 1(2%) Black-polished surface, line burnished design opaque slate, quartz, muscovite Group 1 Regional/Import? Altered Intermediate Intrusive 2 (4%) Red polished slip plagioclase, quartz, hornblende, opaques, clinopyroxene, epidote, biotite, tuff Group 4 Exotic/Import Calcareous Sand 1(2%) Red-orange slip quartz, plagioclase, limestone, clinopyroxene, orthoclase Group 3 Exotic/Import Altered Volcanics 1(2%) Line burnishing altered intermediate? extrusive, carbonate mudstone, epidote, plagioclase, quartz Group 1 Exotic/Import Altered Volcanic Groundmass 1(2%) Flat-bottomed vessel volcanic groundmass, quartz, plagioclase, altered orthoclase, sandstone Group 1 Exotic/Import Altered Mixed Lithics 3(6%) Modeling, punctation, zoned-hatching, partially complete boat-shaped vessel quartz, plagioclase, dacite, limestone, orthoclase, hornblende, biotite, sandstone Group 1 Exotic/Import typically fired in oxidizing conditions with red to buff vessel surfaces. Rare relic coils and the preferential parallel orientation of elongate mineral grains suggest a combination of shaping techniques (i.e. coiling, scraping and paddling) that have largely been obscured by later steps in the production process. More notably, this petro-group is associated with five of the seven zoned-hatched sherds (CU65, CU83, CU94, CU114, CU115). These objects geochemically cluster with Group 1, suggesting they were produced using local raw materials. While these results complicate our initial hypothesis on long-distance exchange, we consider the implications in our discussion. The Regional Assemblage The following petro-groups represent technological styles that are possibly from the Huaritambo, Mosna, and upper Puccha Valleys, within an approximate day's walk (see Figure 2). Although these petro-groups are rare within the assemblage, there are geologic correlates within this sector of the Conchucos Region. Pumice Tuff (n=8, 15%) The pumice tuff paste is defined by glassy, vesicular fragments of pumice inclusions (Figure 7, D). Temper inclusions are moderately sorted, with grains of plagioclase, hornblende, and biotite. Zoned plagioclase grains – the byproduct of prolonged magma-cooling – illustrate some mineral inclusions have volcanic origins. The presence of both green hornblende and pumice, which is typically of rhyolitic composition, may link these inclusions to the rhyolitic tuff reported near Antamina (Bodenlos and Ericksen 1955). Given the high quantity of this paste type, we suspect this petro-group may represent a secondary technological style associated with local production or, perhaps, frequent interaction. Notably, this pumice paste does not appear to match the volcanic tempers reported from Chavín de Huántar (Druc 1998: 73; 2004). Chavín’s volcano-pyroclastic features coarse rhyolitic fragments, with visible phenocrysts of quartz, biotite, and hornblende. Canchas Uckro’s pumice fragments, however, are comparatively glassy and vesicular with no visible mineral inclusions, altogether pointing to a distinct raw material source. One additional important finding is that, while CU107 was identified as a geochemical outlier (Group 5, Figure 5), it falls within this petro-group. We suspect this sherd’s well-polished, red-slipped surface skewed the geochemical findings. Quartz Muscovite Schist (n=3, 6%) This group is dominated by inclusions of quartz muscovite schist. The bimodal distribution of angular rock fragments suggests this material ground and intentionally used as temper. Although schists are generally not reported within Canchas Uckro’s catchment zone (Cueva Tintaya and Torres González 2024), these inclusions are found in sherds from contexts dating to c. 650-400 BCE at Reparín, a site on the Huaritambo Valley (Nesbitt et al. 2020), suggesting this petro-group may have been produced in the Huaritambo valley. Although low quantities of quartz muscovite schist pastes were described at Chavín de Huántar (Druc 1998: 73; 2004), mica inclusions exhibit an acicular texture that is notably distinct from the crenulation and strongly planar foliation associated with Canchas Uckro’s schist petro-group. These mineralogical variations point to different metamorphic formation processes (i.e. distinct pressure conditions) that suggest different raw material sources. Slate 1 (n=4, 8%) The Slate 1 petro-group is characterized by a poorly sorted, sub-angular slate temper, accompanied by quartz and opaque minerals, and rarer sandstone inclusions (Figure 7, B). Although the inclusions exhibit some variation in metamorphic grade, the mineralogy and color of the clay matrix suggest they may be compositionally related. Slate and slate-derived clays, locally known as shashal , can be found near the traditional potting communities of Acopalca and Yacya (Figure 2; Druc 2001, 2005). Though slates form the ridgeline just east of Canchas Uckro, these pastes are rare within the assemblage, suggesting they more likely represent other potting communities within the Huaritambo/Upper Puccha Valley. Graphite Slate (n=2, 4%) This group contains a carbon-rich slate to slate temper that is totally opaque in thin-section (Figure 7, F), with a silvery surface and streak resembling graphite. The grain size distribution is bimodal, and the overall size-sorting is poor. While graphite schists are uncommon, anthracites (~75% carbon) have been reported in the area above Yacya (Druc 2001, 2005), indicating high-carbon content tempers were available in the region. Again, this petro-group is rare within the assemblage, suggesting it may represent other potting communities within southwestern Conchucos. Outliers The remaining petro-groups are exceedingly rare within the assemblage and are believed to represent vessels imported to Canchas Uckro. In most cases, there are either few local geologic correlates or other significant technological differences that point to a distinct production process. Slate 2 (n=1, 2%, CU68) The Slate 2 petro-group is defined by slate inclusions with a high proportion of fissures and voids (Figure 7, C). This lack of compaction is unusual in the Canchas Uckro assemblage and suggests excessive clay shrinkage – possibly indicative of compositional differences – or a distinct shaping process. Geochemically, it is the only slate-tempered sherd that clusters with Group 1, the local assemblage. This finding suggests this sherd is compositionally distinct because it does not group with other slate-tempered wares (Group 2). Furthermore, this petro-group is associated with the single polished black-ware bottle with broad-line incised motifs These combined technological, geochemical, and stylistic distinctions suggest this sherd may represent an example of long-distance exchange. Well-Sorted Calcic Sand (n=1, CU70) This outlier is characterized by a well-sorted sand temper, comprised of quartz, plagioclase, opaque minerals, microcline, and orthoclase feldspar. It possesses a distinct light red slip with roughly the same mineralogy, dominated by quartz and plagioclase inclusions. The clay matrix appears calcareous, with slight birefringent margins (Figure 7, L). However, the matrix is not optically active, indicating the clay minerals have fully vitrified under firing conditions exceeding 850°C (Quinn 2013:190-191), which is unique within our sample. In addition to these significant technological differences, CU70 is also a geochemical outlier (Group 3). The precise provenance, however, is unclear. Isabelle Druc reports a similar paste, comprised of well-sorted fine to medium-sized grains of quartz and plagioclase (Druc 2004: 356, 360) in association with the Cajamarca-related Mosna style (Lumbreras 1993; Lumbreras et al. 2003). Red-on-orange bottles are also known from Huacaloma in contexts dating to c. 1000-800 BCE (Terada et al. 1982; Terada and Onuki 1985). Macroscopic descriptions of Huacaloma Red-on-Orange identified fine-grained inclusions of quartzite and feldspar in a compact gray paste (Terada and Onuki 1985: 103; see also Nesbitt et al. 2008: Figure 18f), resembling both the Chavín’s Mosna style and Canchas Uckro’s singular light red-slipped bottleneck. These similarities may point to a northern highland source. Vitric Tuff (n=1, CU113) This group is defined by its vitric tuff inclusions (Figure 7, G), dark brown in PPL and totally opaque in XPL. The bimodal grain-size distribution and quartz-dominated fine-fraction suggests tuff was an added temper. Although this sherd geochemically clusters with CU70 (see above), it is technologically distinct. The associated vessel represents a carinated neckless olla form. These differences suggest a non-local origin, possibly with the eastern highlands. Intermediate Intrusive Sediment (n=2, CU99 and CU102) This paste contains igneous-derived mineral grains, including quartz and plagioclase, as well as clinopyroxene and, more rarely, epidote (Figure 7, J). The presence of epidote is notable because it is not associated with other previously-described ceramic pastes from the Conchucos region (Druc 1998, 2004). Epidote, however, is a common secondary mineral associated with metamorphic or hydrothermal alteration of plagioclase. Although epidote has been reported from several mines in highland Ancash, including Antamina (Redwood 2005), ceramics in this petro-group are both geochemical (Group 4) and stylistic outliers. Their relatively thin vessel walls feature a well-polished, red slip with well-sorted fine-grained quartz inclusions possibly associated with bottle fragments (e.g. CU102 is likely a bottle base). These technological distinctions collectively support a non-local origin. Altered Cluster The following three petro-groups form a discrete subcluster within the Group 1 local geochemical cluster (Figure 5). Although our statistical analysis does not separate this group from the primary geochemical cluster, petrographic study indicates these sherds represent distinct petro-groups. All the artifacts in this cluster are decorated in some manner, exhibiting polished, unslipped surfaces. While CU89 is a fragment of the semi-complete, zone-hatched Wairajirca vessel from Structure 1’s hearth, other designs are more typical of highland assemblages, including zoned-burnishing (CU77), line-burnishing (CU101), modeled applique (CU72) and punctation (CU108). Although these mixed stylistic associations and the absence of comparative petrographic data complicate the provenance of these petro-groups, we suspect they represent exchange with areas further east. Altered Volcanic (n=1, CU101) This petro-group features feldspar-rich volcanic rock fragments and epidote, as well as carbonate mudstone, plagioclase, opaques, and quartz (Figure 7, H). This combination of inclusions is unique within the analyzed assemblage and points to a geologic landscape that combines several different lithofacies. It is possible this petro-group may be associated with the Huánuco, where the geologic landscape combines limestones (Ambo Group), igneous rocks (Higueras Batholith), and extensive metamorphism and mineral alteration in association with the Marañón Supergroup (Quispesivana Quispe 1996b). Altered Volcanic Groundmass (n=1, CU77) This group contains volcanic groundmass, quartz, plagioclase, epidote, and sericitized feldspar (Figure 7, K). Alteration and damage to individual mineral grains is extensive. While this petro-group closely resembles the Altered Volcanic petro-group (above), it lacks the large epidote clusters and limestone inclusions. Altered Mixed Lithics (n=3, CU72, CU89, CU108) This petro-group is defined by a combination of quartz, andesine (plagioclase), rounded limestone fragments, intrusive tonalite clusters, and volcanic tuff fragments, with orthopyroxene, hornblende, and biotite inclusions (Figure 7, E). Mineral grains, like feldspar, show some evidence of embayment and alteration, and epidote is again present in low quantities. The coarse fraction, however, is comparatively well-sorted. Although pXRF does not geochemically differentiate these materials from the dominant technological style, the multiple realted petro-groups, distinct boat-like vessel form (CU89), and precise implementation of non-local motifs may suggest these artifacts were brought to Canchas Uckro from elsewhere. Discussion Our results have important implications for understanding ceramic production and exchange in Chavín’s hinterland between c. 1100 and 800 BCE. It is important to recognize that the twelve petro-groups described in this study (see Table 1) likely represent multiple technological styles, all of which appear to have been separate from early phases of Chavín de Huántar’s ceramic production. Local production at Canchas Uckro is primarily associated with a single technological style: the felsic tuff sediment petro-group (n=25), associated with neckless ollas and short-neck jars, as well as a small quantity of zoned-hatched vessels. Although this paste somewhat resembles the fine sedimentary paste identified at Chavín, which Druc characterized as “partly local” (2004: 349), there are several important distinctions - principally the inclusion of sub-rounded tuff fragments. A nearly identical petro-group was identified at the early component (c. 650-400 BCE) of Reparín, located approximately 13 km northwest of Canchas Uckro. Given these sites’ proximity to one another and their similar geologic settings, it is possible a shared technological tradition developed within the Huaritambo and upper Puccha Valleys that was distinct from ceramic production at Chavín de Huántar (Druc 1998, 2004). Our petrographic study separated three additional petro-groups from the overarching Group 1 geochemical cluster, including the slate-tempered black ware bottle fragment (n=1), the tuff-tempered wares (n=8), and altered volcanics/mixed lithologies group (n=5). Although volcanic rocks have not been identified near Canchas Uckro in prior geologic maps (Wilson et al. 1995), rhyolitic tuff has been reported south near the Antamina mine (Figure 2; Cobbing et al. 1981; Egeler and De Booy 1956), an area previously identified as one of several possible production zones for Chavín de Huántar (Druc 2004: 361). It is important to stress, however, that the Chavín’s volcanoclastic petro-groups thus far do not match the volcanic pastes from Canchas Uckro (Druc 1998, 73, Ch-C1). Furthermore, the Canchas Uckro’s tuff petro-group includes at least three Wairajirca-related motifs, including zoned-dashing (CU92), pendant triangle (CU63), and zoned-hatching (CU93). The lack of Wairajirca-related motifs in Chavín’s ceramic corpus suggest this raw material source was not within the Mosna Valley. The quantity of tuff-tempered wares in the RLM component of the study (n=33, 21%) further suggests this paste may represent a secondary local paste recipe associated with both highland vessel forms and Wairajirca-related zone-hatched motifs. Less common metamorphic-related pastes, associated with the Group 2 geochemical cluster, demonstrate that the inhabitants of Canchas Uckro obtained vessels from other communities within the Conchucos region. Although graphite, slate, and schist-tempered ceramics overlap within this compositional cluster, this trend is expected, given that minor variation in carbon content partially reflects slate’s inherent compositional variability (Druc 2001). Similar slate and schist paste types have been identified in greater abundance at Reparín, further suggesting close social and economic ties within the immediate upper Puccha and Huaritambo Valleys. While schist-tempered mica pastes were reported by Druc within the Chavín assemblage, they comprise only 3.7% of the analyzed corpus and were interpreted as non-local. However, Chavín’s schist pastes feature acicular mica inclusions that are texturally distinct from the crenulated quartz-muscovite-schist pastes described in this study, pointing to different metamorphic conditions and distinct raw material source. These technological differences further support separation between ceramic production at Chavín de Huántar and Canchas Uckro. At the same time, the presence of other technological outliers point to interactions with other regions of highland Peru, such as Cajamarca. These instances of long-distance exchange are represented by well-made pottery exhibiting non-local designs, rare vessel forms, and/or conspicuous finishing techniques primarily associated with bottle fragments (e.g. CU68, CU70, CU99, CU102, and CU113). It is important to stress that these unusual pastes were intentionally incorporated through disproportionate stratified sampling. In the context of the whole assemblage, however, such trade wares are rare. While this finding matches a broader pattern identified by archaeometric study of other late Initial Period and Early Horizon ceramic assemblages (Inokuchi and Druc 2019; Young 2023), it notably contrasts with the frequency of trade wares at Chavín de Huántar, where as much as 30% of the ceramic assemblage was described as non-local (Druc 1998, 2004: 345). Given the rarity of probable trade wares at Canchas Uckro, we believe these technological and geochemical outliers represent either rare direct exchange or, perhaps more likely, down-the-line, indirect interactions (Nesbitt et al. 2021; sensu Renfrew 1975) through increasingly connected socioeconomic networks. Despite Canchas Uckro’s proximity to Chavín de Huántar, ceramic vessel forms and raw material sources remain relatively distinct. Decorative stylistic choices likewise emphasize zoned-hatching and other motifs related to the eastern Andean highlands. Most of these ceramics were likely made around Canchas Uckro, given that nine (CU65, CU71, CU80, CU83, CU91, CU94, CU95, CU114, CU115) of the thirteen (CU63, CU89, CU92, CU93) group both petrographically and geochemically with the local technological style. Although decorative choices, like incised designs and finishing techniques, can be prone to rapid change (Gosselain 2000; 2008; Roux et al. 2017; Stark et al. 2008), the strong stylistic resemblance and, in several cases, replication of Wairajirca vessel forms (e.g. CU95, CU89), surface treatment, distinct reduced-firing conditions, and post-fire red pigment require further consideration. This combination of technological differences suggests we must consider that non-local potters made the zoned-hatched Wairajirca-related styles using local raw materials. Ethnoarchaeologists in the Andes have identified several types of ceramic production by migrating specialists, termed itinerant, or “swallow” production (Ramón 2011; see also Ramón and Bell 2013; Ramón 1999; 2013) . These production modes, however, are typically marked by the manufacture of local styles in non-local raw materials (Druc 2013; Ramón 2011; Sillar 2000), providing a poor match for the present archaeological data. Furthermore, an itinerant production model assumes pottery manufacture was specialized (Ramón 2011:171), contrasting with the numerous probable potting communities suggested by this study. While the production of Wairajirca-related sherds may have been specialized to some degree, given their low quantity and presumably ritual function (Nesbitt et al. 2021), there are other possible explanations. Wairajirca-related designs may have been made by non-local ceramicists, as eastern highland peoples either migrated to or intermarried with residents of Canchas Uckro (e.g. Mills 2018). This kind of mobility was potentially inherent to the social landscape at this time, c. 1100-800 BCE, as long-distance exchange intensified throughout much of the central Andes (Young 2023; Matsumoto and Cavero Palomino 2023). Furthermore, by attributing at least some of these vessels to the movement of actual people, we may better explain how certain technological innovations, such as reduced-firing, were incorporated into Canchas Uckro’s local technological repertoire. Prior archaeological study suggests the adoption of such technological innovations is related to both the visibility of the technology and its performative role (Mills 2018; Rogers 2003). While objects used in both public and private spaces can facilitate technological transmission, those that are highly visible or enhance status – such as serving vessels employed in public performances – are particularly effective tools in promoting the acceptance of new technologies and related social practices (Mills 2018: 1057). At Canchas Uckro, Wairajirca-related vessels are found in multiple contexts, including domestic spaces – as is the case of the partially-complete vessel (CU89) – as well as refuse layers between the platforms’ two major construction events, interpreted as the remnants of feasting or communal consumption events (Nesbitt 2023: 94). From this perspective, the incorporation of specific elements of Wairajirca’s technological and stylistic innovations into the “local” lexicon could have been facilitated by the inherent visibility of this ceramic style’s decorative motifs, as well as these vessel’s presumably specialized function and probable involvement in public feasting events (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Although there are several potential production scenarios associated with Canchas Uckro’s “local” Wairajirca component, on a broader scale, it is clear a "zoned-hatched interaction sphere" did connect parts of the central Andes (Nesbitt et al. 2021: 122). Zoned-hatching is found throughout the central Andean highlands, from the Callejón de Huaylas (Burger 1985), to the Huallaga (Brown 2022, 117, 453–54; Izumi and Sono 1963; Izumi and Terada 1972), and Conchucos regions, potentially serving as a marker of participation in the social and ideological networks closely tied to the eastern highlands and the tropical forests (Izumi 1971; Kanezaki et al. 2021; Kano 1979; Lathrap 1971; Nesbitt et al. 2021). The complete lack of these ceramic styles at Chavín de Huántar, however, ultimately presents a patchy distribution that underscores the complexity of the social processes facilitating its transmission. While craft production can be a means of reproducing and maintaining social identity, it is also a realm of active negotiation, in which people can choose to participate in – or reject – specific social and economic relationships (Bowser 2000; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Roux et al. 2017; Stark et al. 2008). Such intentional choices may not only explain the distribution of zoned-hatched styles in the central Andes, but also the lack of both Chavín-related designs and Chavín-related technological styles at Canchas Uckro at this time, despite these sites’ proximity and shared architectural features. The uneven distribution Wairajirca-related designs, in combination with Canchas Uckro’s apparent independence from Chavín de Huántar, collectively point to the development of multiple, potentially competing interaction networks. Conclusions Between 1100 and 800 BCE, Canchas Uckro was embedded in a network of intra- and inter-regional interactions, involving the movement of people, physical objects, and technological innovations. The vast majority of Canchas Uckro’s ceramic assemblage associated with this period appears to have been locally made (80-85% 1 ). This local assemblage includes a subset of decorated wares closely resembling eastern Andean Wairajirca ceramic style. We argue that the replication of a non-local style in local raw materials may indicate that people from the Marañon or upper Huallaga were incorporated within Canchas Uckro’s community, facilitating the spread of a specific pottery style along with symbolically-charged decorations. This kind of social movement was perhaps inherent to the social landscape at this time. Within the Huaritambo and Upper Puccha Valleys, these kinds of movements are materialized by more frequent instances of ceramic exchange (~10%), as well as regionally-shared technological styles and ceramic paste recipes, which document the exploitation of similar raw materials. Despite evidence of other inter-and intra-regional ties, comparison with Chavín’s ceramic petro-groups, vessel forms, and other available archaeometric data (Druc 1998; 2004; Lumbreras et al. 2003) suggests that Canchas Uckro’s ceramic production was largely independent from the early phases of Chavín de Huántar. At present, there are no compositional or petrographic correlations connecting these two sites, with the exception of the single possible Red-on-Orange Huacaloma-related bottle fragment. Although a small portion of Canchas Uckro’s ceramic assemblage, namely rare bottle fragments (2-4%) and possible Huallaga-related wares (2-4%), indicate that ceramics from other parts of the Andean highlands occasionally reached the site, the low quantities of these sherds suggest they moved through infrequent, down-the-line exchange networks, and not necessarily those centered at Chavín. Altogether, stylistic and technological differences between Canchas Uckro’s and Chavín de Huántar’s ceramic assemblages suggests Canchas Uckro’s residents chose to prioritize and maintain their social and economic ties with the eastern highlands c. 1100-800 BCE. Collectively, these data underscore the social and economic complexity of the late second millennium BCE, as interaction networks expanded across much of the central Andes, reached into the Upper Amazon (Church 2021; DeBoer 2003; Nesbitt et al. 2021; Seki 2023), and set the stage for the rapid growth of the Chavín phenomenon. Declarations Acknowledgements: We would like to express our gratitude to Jordi Benites Segura, Carlos Escobar Silva, Jorge Champi, and Jhon Cruz Quiñones for their invaluable support and collaboration in the field. Artifact export was facilitated by Jordi Benites Segura, under permit N°01-2023-DCIA-LHF/MC, granted by the Ministerio de Cultural del Perú. Financial support provided by the the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship facilitated preliminary field work. Financial support provided by the Rust Family Foundation (RFF-2021-168) enabled thin-section slide preparation, while the Louisiana Board of Regents Targeted Enhancement Research Grant facilitated the purchase of the Bruker5i portable X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer used in this project. The writing of this manuscript was supported by the Tulane University Dissertation Completion Fellowship. These institutions’ generous funding made this project possible. Special thanks go to Tatsuya Murakami, Sarah Gilleland, Franco Zani Jr., and Shannon Torrens, whose feedback on earlier drafts of this paper greatly improved the final manuscript. CRediT Rachel Johnson: Writing – original draft, review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Data Validation, Data curation Bebel Ibarra Asencios: Project Administration, Resources, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Data Validation, Writing – review & editing Jason Nesbitt: Writing – original draft, review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision Julia Sjödahl: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing - review & editing MinJoo Choi: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing – review & editing Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper. Data Availability Statement: The raw pXRF geochemical data and full-length descriptions of ceramic petrographic types presented in this paper are housed in the data archives of the Tulane Center for Archaeology. Please contact Rachel Johnson ( [email protected] ) or Jason Nesbitt ( [email protected] ) to access these data files. Site locations (DMS), results from reflective light microscopic (RLM) analysis, and a full description of the statistical treatment of the pXRF data are available as supplementary information. References Adlington LW, Gratuze B, Schibille N (2020) Comparison of pXRF and LA-ICP-MS Analysis of Lead-Rich Glass Mosaic Tesserae. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 34:102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102603 Arnold DE (2000) Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes Really Mean Specialization? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4): 333–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026570906712 Baxter MJ (2001) Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. In: Brothwell D, Pollard Am (eds) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Wiley, New York, pp. 681-90. Baxter MJ, Freestone I (2006) Log-Ratio Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeometry. Archaeometry 48(3): 511–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2006.00270.x Bishop RL, Canouts V, De Atley SP, Qöyawayma A, Aikins CW (1988) The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups: Hopi Pottery Production and Exchange, A.C. 1300-1600. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3): 317–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/530312 Bodenlos AJ, Ericksen GE (1955) Lead-Zinc Deposits of Cordillera Blanca and Northern Cordillera Huayhuash, Peru. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1017, United States Geological Survey (USGS), Washington DC. Bowser BJ (2000) From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 219–48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510620824. Brown NE (2022) Ancient Andean Archipelagos: Human Interaction and Social Innovation at Chawin Punta and Kunturay in the East-Central Highlands of Pasco, Peru. Dissertation, Yale University. Burger RL (1982) Pojoc and Waman Wain: Two Early Horizon Villages in the Chavin Heartland.” Ñawpa Pacha 20(1): 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1179/naw.1982.20.1.002. (1984) The Prehistoric Occupation of Chavín de Huántar, Peru. University of California Press, Los Angeles. (1985) Prehistoric Stylistic Change and Cultural Development at Huaricoto, Peru. National Geographic Research 1:505–34. (1992) Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. Thames and Hudson, London. Church W (2021) A Record of Early Long-Distance Societal Interaction from Manachaqui Cave in Peru’s Northeastern Andes. In: Clasby R, Nesbitt J (eds) The Archaeology of the Upper Amazon: Complexity and Interaction in the Andean Tropical Forest. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 38-61. Cobbing EJ, Pitcher WS, Wilson JJ, Baldock JW, Taylor WP, McCourt W, Snelling NJ (1981) The Geology of the Western Cordillera of Northern Peru. Oversea Memoir 5, Institute of Geological Sciences, London. Cobbing EJ, Sánchez Fernández A, Martínez Valladares W, Zárate Olazabal H (1996) Geología de los cuadrángulos de Huaraz, Recuay, La Unión, Chiquián y Yanahuanca. Hojas: 20-h, 20-i, 20-j, 21-i, 21-j. Boletín, Serie A: Carta Geológica Nacional 76, Institute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima. Contreras DA (2011) How Far to Conchucos? A GIS Approach to Assessing the Implications of Exotic Materials at Chavín de Huántar. World Archaeology 43:380–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011.605841 (2015) Landscape Setting as Medium of Communication at Chavín de Huántar, Peru. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(2): 513–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977431400081X Cueva Tintaya E, Torres González D (2024) Geología de los cuadrángulos de Huari (hojas 19i1, 19i2, 19i3, 19i4) y Singa (hojas 19j3, 19j4). Boletín Serie L: Carta Geológica a Nacional 56, Institute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima. Day PM, Kiriatzi E, Tsolakidou A, Kilikoglou V (1999) Group Therapy in Crete: A Comparison Between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Minoan Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(8): 1025–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0424 DeBoer W (2003) Ceramic Assemblage Variability in the Formative of Ecuador and Peru. In: Raymond JS, Burger RL (eds) The Archaeology of Formative Ecuador. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington DC, pp. 289-336. Diessl W (2004) Sitios Arqueológicos en los distritos de Chavín, Huántar y San Marcos. In: Ibarra Asencios B (ed) Arqueología de la sierra de Ancash: propuestas y perspectivas. Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima, pp.331-370. Dietler M, Herbich I (1998) Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In: Stark MT (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp. 232-236. Dobres M (2000) Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA. Druc IC (1996) De la Etnografía Hacia la Arqueología: Aportes de Entrevistas Con Ceramistas de Ancash (Perú) para la Caracterización de la Cerámica Prehispánica. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’études Andins 25:17-41. https://doi.org/10.3406/bifea.1996.1222 (1998) Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Chavín Sphere of Influence (North-Central Andes). British Archaeological Reports International Series 731, BAR Publishing, Oxford. (2001) ¿Shashal o no shashal? Esa es la cuestión Etnoarqueología cerámica en la zona de Huari, Ancash. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’études Andines 30(1): 157–73. https://doi.org/10.4000/bifea.7349 (2004) Ceramic Diversity in Chavín De Huantar, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 15(3): 344–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/4141578 (2005) Producción cerámica y etnoarqueología en Conchucos, Ancash, Perú. Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima. (2013) What Is Local? Looking at Ceramic Production in the Peruvian Highlands and Beyond. Journal of Anthropological Research 69(4): 485–513. https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0069.404 (2015) Portable Digital Microscope. Atlas of Ceramic Pastes: Components, Texture and Technology. Deep University Press, Blue Mounds, WI. (2016) La cerámica tardía de Marcajirca, Conchucos, Áncash: lo que nos enseñan los estudios petrográficos. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’études Andines 45(2): 327–52. https://doi.org/10.4000/bifea.8014 Egeler C, De Booy T (1956) Geology and Petrology of Part of the Southern Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Geology Series 19:1–86. Frahm E (2018) Ceramic Studies Using Portable XRF: From Experimental Tempered Ceramics to Imports and Imitations at Tell Mozan, Syria. Journal of Archaeological Science 90:12–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.12.002 Gandon E, Nonaka T, Endler JA, Coyle T, Bootsma RJ. 2020. Traditional Craftspeople Are Not Copycats: Potter Idiosyncrasies in Vessel Morphogenesis. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239362 Glascock MD (1992) Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Nuetron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In: Neff H (ed) Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Monographs in World Archaeology, Prehistory Press, Madison WI, pp.11-26. Gosselain O (2000) Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:187–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026558503986 (2008) Mother Bella Was Not a Bella. Inherited and Transformed Traditions in Southwestern Niger. In Stark MT, Bowser BJ, Horne L (eds.) Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking down Boundaries/ University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 150-177. Harbottle G (1976) Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33–72. Heidke J (2009) Multi-Village Specialized Craft Production and the Distribution of Hohokam Sedentary Period Pottery, Tucson, Arizona. In Quinn PS (ed.) Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 227-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2m7c521.17 Holmqvist E (2017) Handheld Portable Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (pXRF). In Hunt AM (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis/ Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 363-381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199681532.013.41 Hunt AM, Speakman RJ (2015) Portable XRF Analysis of Archaeological Sediments and Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 53:626–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.031 Ibarra Asencios B (ed.) (2004) Arqueología de la sierra de Ancash: propuestas y perspectivas, Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima. Inokuchi K, Druc IC (2019) Socioeconomic Transformations at the Ceremonial Center of Kuntur Wasi: Raw Materials, Craft Production, and Leadership. In Burger RL, Salazar LC, Seki Y (eds.) Perspectives on Early Andean Civilization in Peru: Interaction, Authority, and Socioeconomic Organization during the First and Second Millennia BC. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 94, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 83-96. Izumi S (1971) The Development of the Formative Culture in the Ceja de Montaña: A Viewpoint Based on the Materials from the Kotosh Site. In Benson EP (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavín. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 49-72. Izumi S, Cuculiza P, Kano C (1972) Excavations at Shillacoto, Huánuco, Peru. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Izumi S, Sono T (1963) Andes 2 Excavations at Kotosh, Peru 1960. Kadokawa Publishing Company, Tokyo. Izumi S, Terada K (1972) Excavations at Kotosh, Peru: A Report on the Third and Fourth Expeditions. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Kanezaki Y, Omori T, Tsurumi E (2021) Emergence and Development of Pottery in the Andean Early Formative Period: New Insights from an Improved Wairajirca Pottery Chronology at the Jancao Site in the Huánuco Region, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 32(2): 239–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2020.89 Kano C (1979) The Origins of the Chavín Culture. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 22, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC. Kembel SR (2008) The Architecture at the Monumental Center of Chavín de Huántar: Sequence, Transformations, and Chronology. In: Conklin WJ, Quilter J (eds.) Chavín: Art, Architecture, and Culture. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp. 35-84. Lathrap D (1970) The Upper Amazon. Thames and Hudson, London.(1971) The Tropical Forest and the Cultural Context of Chavín. In Benson EP (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavín. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 73-100. Lathrap D, Roys L (1963) The Archaeology of the Cave of the Owls in the Upper Montana of Peru. American Antiquity 29(1): 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/278628 Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lechtman H, Merrill RS (eds.) (1977) Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, West Publishing Company, St. Paul. LeMoine J, Halperin, CT (2021) Comparing INAA and pXRF Analytical Methods for Ceramics: A Case Study with Classic Maya Wares. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36:102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102819 León Gómez M (1996) El Sínodo de Piscobamba en la Historia de la Evangelización del Callejon de Conchucos. In: Villanueva Delgado J, León Gómez M, Pini Rodolfi F (eds.) Presencia de Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo en el Callejón de Conchucos, Ancash, Peru: Prelatura de Huari, Peru, pp. 112-278. Liritzis I, Xanthopoulou V, Palamara E, Papageorgiou I, Iliopoulos I, Zacharias N, Vafiadou A, Karydas AG (2020) Characterization and Provenance of Ceramic Artifacts and Local Clays from Late Mycenaean Kastrouli (Greece) by Means of p-XRF Screening and Statistical Analysis. Journal of Cultural Heritage 46:61–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.06.004 Lumbreras LG (1993) Chavín de Huántar: Excavaciones En La Galería de Las Ofrendas. P. von Zabern, Germany. Lumbreras LG, Gebhard R, Häusler W, Kauffmann-Doig F, Riederer FJ, Sieben G, Wagner U (2003) Mössbauer Study of Ceramic Finds from the Galería de Las Ofrendas, Chavín de Huántar. Hyperfine Interactions 150(1–4): 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYPE.0000007214.89534.37 Matsumoto Y (2020) Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Huallaga Basin, Peru. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 95, Yale University Press, New Haven. Matsumoto Y, Cavero Palomino Y (2023) Campanayuq Rumi and the Southern Periphery of the Chavín Phenomenon. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chavín Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 359-392. Mesía-Montenegro C (2022) Social Complexity and Core-Periphery Relationships in an Andean Formative Ceremonial Centre: Domestic Occupation at Chavín de Huántar. Antiquity 96(388): 883–902. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.73 Mills BJ (2018) Intermarriage, Technological Diffusion, and Boundary Objects in the U.S. Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25(4): 1051–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9392-0 Mitchell D, Grave P, Maccheroni M, Gelman E (2012) Geochemical Characterisation of North Asian Glazed Stonewares: A Comparative Analysis of NAA, ICP-OES and Non-Destructive pXRF. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(9): 2921–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.044 Neff H (1994) Rq-Mode Principal Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data. Archaeometry 36(1): 115–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1994.tb01068.x Nesbitt J (2023) Archaeological Investigations in the Chavin Heartland: New Perspectives from Canchas Uckro. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chavín Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 81–109. Nesbitt J, Gutiérrez B, Vásquez S (2008) Excavaciones en Huaca Cortada, complejo de Caballo Muerto, valle de Moche: un informe preliminar. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP, 12: 261–86. https://doi.org/10.18800/boletindearqueologiapucp.200801.012. Nesbitt J, Ibarra Asencios B (2023) The Radiocarbon Chronology of Canchas Uckro: Implications for Understanding the Late Initial Period (1100–800 BC) in the Chavín Heartland. In: Seki Y (ed.) New Perspectives on the Early Formation of the Andean Civilization: Chronology, Interaction, and Social. Senri Ethnological Studies 112, pp. 169-196. https://doi.org/10.15021/00010050. Nesbitt J, Ibarra Asencios B, Tokanai F (2020) The Architecture and Chronology of Reparin, Eastern Ancash, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 40(1): 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00776297.2019.1666535 Nesbitt J, Johnson R, Ibarra Asencios B (2021) Connections Between the Chavin Heartland and the Ceja de Selva in the Late Initial Period: New Evidence from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BC). In: Clasby R, Nesbitt J (eds.) The Archaeology of the Upper Amazon: Complexity and Interaction in the Andean Tropical Forest. University Press of Florida, Gainseville, pp. 106–28. Quinn PS (2013) Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Archaeopress, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1jk0jf4 Quispesivana Quispe LJ (1996) Geología del cuadrángulo de Huánuco. Hoja: 20-k. Boletín, Serie A, Carta Geológica Nacional 75, Institute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima. Ramón G (1999) Producción alfarera en Santo Domingo de los Olleros (Huarochirí - Lima).” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’études Andines 28(2): 215–48. https://doi.org/10.3406/bifea.1999.1354 (2011) The Swallow Potters: Seasonally Migratory Styles in the Andes. In: Scarcella S (ed.) Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2193, BAR Publishing, Oxford, pp. 160-175. (2013) Las fuentes del estilo: distribución regional de canteras y técnicas alfareras en Conchucos (Ancash, Perú). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’études Andines 42(1): 29–90. https://doi.org/10.4000/bifea.1061 Ramón G, Bell M (2013) Re-Placing Plainware: Production and Distribution of Domestic Pottery, and the Narration of the Pre-Colonial Past in the Peruvian Andes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32(4): 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.09.005. Redwood SD (2005) Geology and Development History of the Antamina Copper-Zinc Skarn Deposit, Peru. In: Sillitoe RH, Perelló J, Vidal CE (eds.) Andean Metallogeny. Society of Economic Geologists, Colorado, pp. 259-277. https://doi.org/10.5382/SP.11.14 Renfrew C (1975) Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In: Sabloff JA, Lamberg-Karlovsky CC (eds.) Ancient Civilization and Trade. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 3-59. Rice PM (2015) Pottery Analysis, Second Edition: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rick JW (2005) The Evolution of Authority and Power at Chavin de Huantar, Peru. In: Vaughn KJ, Ogburn D, Conlee CA (eds.) Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, pp. 71-89. (2008) Context, Construction, and Ritual in the Development of Authority at Chavin de Huantar. In: Conklin WJ, Quilter J (eds.) Chavin: Art, Architecture, and Culture. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, pp. 3-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdmwx21 Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Simon and Schuster, New York. Roux V, Bril B, Cauliez J, Goujon A, Lara C, Manen C, de Saulieu G, Zangato E (2017) Persisting Technological Boundaries: Social Interactions, Cognitive Correlations and Polarization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48:320–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.09.004. Roux V, Courty M (2013) Introduction to Discontinuities and Continuities: Theories, Methods and Proxies for a Historical and Sociological Approach to Evolution of Past Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(2): 187–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9170-y Sayre M, Rosenfeld S (2023) A River Runs through It: Ritual and Inequality in the La Banda Sector of Chavín de Huantar. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chavín Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp 61-79. Seki Y (2023) The Establishment of Power in the Formative Period of the North Highlands of Peru. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chavín Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp 141-172. Shugar AN (2013) Portable X-Ray Fluorescence and Archaeology: Limitations of the Instrument and Suggested Methods To Achieve Desired Results. In: Armitage RA, Burton JH (eds.) Archaeological Chemistry VIII. ACS Symposium Series 1147, American Chemical Society, pp. 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1147.ch010 Sillar B (2000) Dung by Preference: The Choice of Fuel as an Example of How Andean Pottery Production Is Embedded within Wider Technical, Social, and Economic Practices. Archaeometry 42 (1): 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00865.x Speakman RJ, Little NC, Creel D, Miller MR, Iñañez JG. 2011. Sourcing Ceramics with Portable XRF Spectrometers? A Comparison with INAA Using Mimbres Pottery from the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(12): 3483–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.011 Stark MT, Bowser BJ, Horne L (eds.) (2008) Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2phprdh Tello JC (1943) Discovery of the Chavín Culture in Peru. American Antiquity 9(1): 135–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/275457. (1960) Chavín, cultura matriz de la civilización andina. University of San Marcos, Lima. Terada K, Onuki Y (1985) The Formative Period in the Cajamarca Basin, Peru: Excavations at Huacaloma and Layzon, 1982. Report 3 of the Japanese Scientific Expedition to Nuclear America, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Terada K, Onuki Y, Ushino T, Matsumoto R, Seki Y, Kato Y, Ninomiya S, et al. (1982) Excavations at Huacaloma in the Cajamarca Valley, Peru, 1979. Report 2 of the Japanese Scientific Expedition to Nuclear America, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Whitbread IK (1986) The Characterisation of Argillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry 28 (1): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1986.tb00376.x (1995) Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study, First American Edition. British School at Athens, London. Wilson AL (1978) Elemental Analysis of Pottery in the Study of Its Provenance: A Review. Journal of Archaeological Science 5(3): 219–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(78)90041-9 Wilson J, Molina O, Sanchez Fernandez AW (1995) Mapa Geológico Del Cuadrángulo de Huari, 19-i.” Mapa Geológico del Cuandrangulo de Huari. Boletín, Serie A: Carta Geológica Nacional. Intitute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima. Wilson J, Reyes Rivera L, Garayar S. J (1995) Geología de los cuadrángulos de Pallasca, Tayabamba, Corongo, Pomabamba, Carhuaz y Huari. Hojas: 17-h, 17-i,18-h, 18-i, 19-h, y 19-i. Boletín, Serie A: Carta Geológica Nacional 60. Intitute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima. Wise J, Nobel D (2003) Geomorphic Evolution of the Cordillera Blanca, Northern Peru. Boletin de La Sociedad Geologica Del Peru 96:65–85. Young M (2023) Horizon, Interaction Sphere, Cult? A View of the Chavin Phenomenon from Huancavelica. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chavín Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 323-358. Footnotes The estimated ranges for the final assemblage composition is based on the integration of RLM and petrographic data, which corrected for possible misidentifications during preliminary phases Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Johnsonetal.OnlineResource1RLM.pdf Johnsonetal.OnlineResource2Statistics.pdf Johnsonetal.OnlineResource3SiteLocations.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 22 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 16 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 05 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 30 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 29 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6559670","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":453194368,"identity":"a02fd050-55e3-4215-9a25-d1e97d5d58cf","order_by":0,"name":"Rachel Johnson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tulane University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rachel","middleName":"","lastName":"Johnson","suffix":""},{"id":453194369,"identity":"bc889bed-6961-44d5-a405-83f25ddc0504","order_by":1,"name":"Bebel Ibarra Asencios","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bebel","middleName":"Ibarra","lastName":"Asencios","suffix":""},{"id":453194370,"identity":"63c81422-a839-49ac-a039-a12d2e693333","order_by":2,"name":"Jason Nesbitt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tulane University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jason","middleName":"","lastName":"Nesbitt","suffix":""},{"id":453194371,"identity":"20af7c09-83d7-48c6-b3e5-96803a7787f7","order_by":3,"name":"Julia Sjödahl","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tulane University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julia","middleName":"","lastName":"Sjödahl","suffix":""},{"id":453194372,"identity":"9e962c09-5f44-436e-a301-d1b0607672d0","order_by":4,"name":"MinJoo Choi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tulane University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"MinJoo","middleName":"","lastName":"Choi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-29 22:38:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559670/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559670/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02333-0","type":"published","date":"2025-11-22T15:58:40+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82259329,"identity":"b48003e3-3c2b-4b5e-86fa-4c53b49503b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:43:30","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":903835,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of archaeological sites and locations mentioned in the text\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/9dae69e6e74829efb74de6d2.png"},{"id":82259908,"identity":"da069a9e-1872-41a2-9456-f4192fd070c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:51:30","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1565814,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeologic map of southern Conchucos and the eastern central highland Andes, focusing on the southern Conchucos and Huánuco regions, modified after INGEMMET geological map of Peru\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/1924583ce31716ab31d99484.png"},{"id":82260772,"identity":"e0c3a66a-d9a3-4568-be38-9c91a71c1d27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:59:30","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1493466,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ea: Aireal image of excavations at Canchas Uckro; “S” refers to structure, and “W” refers to wall, while the blue areas highlight historic and pre-Hispanic walls (photo by Julia Sjödahl) \u003cbr\u003e\nb: Excavations on the platform summit, showing two circular structures and a canal; S1 contained a small hearth\u003cbr\u003e\nc: Large-scale excavations on the southeastern platform façade, showing megalithic slabs of the potential collapsed gallery\u003cbr\u003e\nd: A semi-complete zoned-hatched vessel was found above the hearth in S1, exhibiting a distinct “boat-shaped” form\u003cem\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003c/em\u003ee: A zoned-hatched Wairajirca vessel from Kotosh on display in the Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú (photos b, c,\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ed and e by Jason Nesbitt)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/fc2ab4978a4ec6beccb6d092.png"},{"id":82259909,"identity":"7e0ab73e-47a2-4700-885d-8f64fc9e1dab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:51:30","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":149296,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHierarchical cluster analysis on PCA components; HCA proposed 2 main groups (Group 1 and 2) and several outliers; the dendrogram is labeled by general petrographic types\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/63eeb8a507d8a2ed768f36ad.png"},{"id":82259912,"identity":"2b90374a-8c93-46ce-ac63-27de12dda81f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:51:30","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140264,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDiscriminant function analysis (DFA) via Mahalanobis distance confirmed group assignments with 100% agreement\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/112006495697d06d651930f2.png"},{"id":82259351,"identity":"c2dc7efa-c769-47d3-83df-d394113c21a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:43:31","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":991825,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAll sampled ceramics are separated by geochemical group and petrographic type\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/b52cdb92c8f651ee8a6e53f9.png"},{"id":82259341,"identity":"0d6a37d6-6153-4dcf-ae3f-5dafe299f1c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:43:31","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2689359,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePetrographic fabric groups in plane-polarized light (PPL, top) and cross polarized light (XPL, bottom): a. Quartz Muscovite Schist (CU111); b. Slate 1 (CU110); c. Slate 2 (CU68); d. Glassy Pumice Tuff (CU107); e. Mixed Lithics (CU89); f. Graphite (CU87); g. Vitric Tuff (CU113); h. Altered Volcanic (CU101); i. Felsic Tuff Sediment, the predominant paste recipe (CU69); j. Altered Intermediate Intrusive Sediment (CU99); k. Altered Volcanic Groundmass (CU77); l. Calcareous Sand (CU70); all images are 40x magnification\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/763d04e98e1dc61484790810.png"},{"id":96650198,"identity":"b5cf3023-01c1-420c-a2a0-451c7e6e7efb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-24 16:09:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":9330514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/e6736175-dbb2-4123-881a-bafefad6b130.pdf"},{"id":82259330,"identity":"014a869c-a58d-4194-a0c3-b2740ff5c79b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:43:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2163403,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Johnsonetal.OnlineResource1RLM.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/1ec1a780de5fb264fb858a5d.pdf"},{"id":82259337,"identity":"274e7b4e-668f-42be-a8ee-f7fd47836bea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:43:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":990912,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Johnsonetal.OnlineResource2Statistics.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/82fccf64c08680ff7f70829a.pdf"},{"id":82259340,"identity":"cfe551f9-d72e-4e5b-a170-23214138844d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:43:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":145588,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Johnsonetal.OnlineResource3SiteLocations.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559670/v1/1c9123d78aea4d9f9b18ab7b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Chavín Heartland: An Archaeometric Study from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BCE), Ancash, Perú","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDuring the period between c. 1100 and 400 BCE, Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar was a major ceremonial center and urban settlement (Burger 1984, 1992; Rick 2008; Sayre and Rosenfeld 2023). Archaeological survey has also demonstrated that Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar was surrounded by numerous contemporary settlements distributed along the Mosna, Puccha, and Huaritambo rivers (Figure 1) (Burger 1982; Diessl 2004; Ibarra Asencios 2004; Nesbitt 2023; Tello 1960). While there are some similarities in architecture and material culture, the question of how these nearby sites articulated with Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar in socioeconomic terms is unclear. Previous researchers investigating pottery production speculated that neighboring settlements supplied Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar with ceramic vessels (Druc 2004: 360), implying economic dependencies based on regional ceramic exchange. In this paper, we aim to address how nearby sites articled with Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar through an archaeometric ceramic study, leveraging a light microscopy-based (digital microscope) sampling strategy with portable X-Ray fluorescence and thin-section petrography, to characterize pottery production at Canchas Uckro, a Chav\u0026iacute;n-contemporary site located approximately 25 km northeast of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar. Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s proximity to Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, as well as its positioning near exchange routes with the eastern highlands and upper Amazon (Nesbitt et al. 2021), provide an opportunity to examine socio-economic relationships and regional identities from the perspective of the Chav\u0026iacute;n heartland.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study focuses on ceramic technological style, which is a byproduct of both raw material choices and the physical steps of manufacture, as well as the social and cultural norms embedded within the learned practices of craft production (Dobres 2000; Lave and Wenger 1991; Lechtman and Merrill 1977). Although some production variation is typical (e.g. Gandon et al. 2020), social parameters and shared technological knowledge tend to limit production methods, reinforcing and perpetuating technological traditions over time. One way technological style is maintained is through the teaching and shared use of particular paste recipes, a technological feature that is generally more resistant to change, compared to superficial stylistic choices, like vessel form and finishing (Gosselain 2000; 2008; Roux and Courty 2013). In the Andes, potting communities often utilize multiple clay recipes (Arnold 2000; Druc 1996; Ram\u0026oacute;n 2013). By characterizing specific paste recipes and related technological features and comparing these traits with regional stylistic patterns, we aim to trace social and exchange networks within the Chav\u0026iacute;n heartland.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeographic Setting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCanchas Uckro is a two-tiered platform that functioned as a ceremonial center and village settlement between c. 1100 and 800 BCE (Nesbitt 2023), located within the Conchucos Region between the Cordillera Blanca and the Mara\u0026ntilde;\u0026oacute;n River (see Le\u0026oacute;n G\u0026oacute;mez 1996). Orogenic uplift has faulted and folded the region into complex, repeating layers of Jurassic and Cretaceous-aged sedimentary rocks, dominated by dark-gray shales, siltstones, sandstones, quartzites, and limestones (Wilson et al. 1995). The sediments filling narrow valley floors consist primarily of Quaternary glacial deposits representing local and up-river geologic formations. To the west, the high peaks of the Cordillera Blanca are comprised almost entirely of late Jurassic-aged shales, intruded by a Middle to Late Miocene-aged (8.2-5 Ma) granitic to granodioritic pluton (Wise and Nobel 2003). Further east lies the Mara\u0026ntilde;on Supergroup, a thick Precambrian basement rock characterized by heavily-altered gneisses and schists that extend south and east into Hu\u0026aacute;nuco and the Cordillera Oriental (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe site of Canchas Uckro is located within a bowl-shaped valley on a hill of Santa Carhuaz siltstone and sandstone. There is a limestone ridge to the west (Jumasha Formation) and a slate/quartzite ridge to the east (Chimu Formation). The steeply-incised \u003cem\u003equebradas\u003c/em\u003e framing the triangular landform on which the site is situated are prone to landslides and debris flows. We suspect this placement was intentional (Nesbitt 2023), mirroring Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s placement at the confluence of the Mosna and Wacheqsa Rivers in a similarly geologically precarious landscape (Burger 1992; Contreras 2015: 517; Rick 2005; 2008, 9\u0026ndash;10).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMuch of Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s immediate geological landscape is composed of sedimentary rock, with relatively few volcanic outcrops. One exception is a rhyolitic tuff identified near Antamina (Bodenlos and Ericksen 1955), a major copper mine approximately 11 kilometers south of the site. This area is notably adjacent to the Inca Road, which connects Conchucos with La Uni\u0026oacute;n and the upper Huallaga drainage (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Further south, near the headwaters of the Mosna River, the Chicama Formation reportedly contains interbedded layers of volcanic tuff and ignimbrites (Cobbing et al. 1981; Cobbing et al. 1996), corresponding to the dominant ceramic technological traditions from Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Druc 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSite Background\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCanchas Uckro was one of many Chav\u0026iacute;n-contemporary sites in the Conchucos region. Most of these sites are considerably smaller than Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, measuring 1-5 hectares in area and consisting of 1 or 2 platforms (Diessl 2004; Nesbitt 2023). Canchas Uckro was one of the larger sites in the region, and around 1100/1000 BCE, may have even been a peer center with the early phases of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Nesbitt and Ibarra Asencios 2023; see also Kembel 2008).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe site\u0026rsquo;s two-tiered platform measures approximately 3 m in height. Archaeological excavations suggest Canchas Uckro was constructed in two building phases. In the first phase (c. 1100-950/900 BCE), the platform was likely round, similar to other monumental sites in the eastern and northern highlands (Nesbitt 2023). Associated with the summit of the first phase platform were two hut-like domestic structures (Structures 1 and 2, Figure 3A) (Nesbitt et al. 2021). In Structure 1, we recovered a semi-complete vessel from above a hearth (Figure 3B and 3D), radiocarbon dated to c.1100-1000 BCE (Nesbitt and Ibarra Asencios 2023: 174). This find is notable because the vessel form, surface finishing, and incised design closely resemble Wairajirca Phase ceramics from archaeological sites in the upper Huallaga drainage (see discussion below). The second architectural phase was characterized by the construction of a new rectangular platform around 950/900-800 BCE, covering the original platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeramic Assemblage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCanchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s pottery is dominated by three forms: neckless ollas (an incurving cooking pot) (48%), jars (12.6%), and open bowls (37.7%) (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Bottles are present, though rare, and include both long-neck and stirrup-spout varieties. The proportion of different vessel types resembles those reported from contemporary assemblages at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar during the Urabarriu Phase (c. 1000/900-850/800 BCE) (Burger 1984; Mes\u0026iacute;a-Montenegro 2022: 889). While there are broad similarities in these sites\u0026rsquo; ceramic assemblages, there are also key differences. For instance, Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s neckless ollas are dominated by collared styles, which often exhibit sharply carinated forms that are entirely absent from Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Burger 1984) and other sites in the north-central highlands (e,g., Burger 1985). While some decorations, like cane\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;stamping and incised horizontal lines, are typical highland motifs, nearly a quarter of the decorated assemblage (n=26 of 104) exhibit a distinctive type of zoned-hatching that is one of the defining decorative motifs associated with the Wairajirca Phase (CU65, CU83, CU89, CU93, CU94, CU114, CU115; Figure 6) from the upper Huallaga (Nesbitt et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese Wairajirca-related vessels at Canchas Uckro are unslipped, monochrome, and fired in reducing conditions that produce dark gray or brown surfaces. In the upper Huallaga, these designs first appear around 1400 BCE (Kanezaki et al. 2021) and exhibit strong stylistic ties to Upper Amazon pottery through carinated vessel forms, well-polished surfaces, and geometric, incised designs commonly filled with red-ochre pigment (DeBoer 2003; Kanezaki et al. 2021; Izumi 1971; Lathrap 1970; 1971; Lathrap and Roys 1963). The most common motif is exterior zoned-hatching: a combination of vertical and horizontal bands filled with straight-line or diagonal incisions (Izumi 1971; Izumi et al. 1972; Izumi and Terada 1972; Tello 1943: XIX). Because of the ubiquity of zoned-hatched pottery in the upper Huallaga region (e.g. Brown 2022:233; Izumi 1971; Izumi and Terada 1972; Kanezaki et al. 2021) these ceramics were thought to be imported to Canchas Uckro from the Hu\u0026aacute;nuco region (Nesbitt et al. 2021). Similar zoned-hatched ceramics have been reported from Huaricoto in the Callej\u0026oacute;n de Huaylas (Burger 1985: 511\u0026ndash;12), as well as Muquijirca, near the confluence of the Puccha and Mara\u0026ntilde;\u0026oacute;n Rivers (Jordi Benites Segura, personal communication), suggesting these styles were widely circulated between c. 1400-900/850 BCE (Nesbitt et al. 2021: 122).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStill rarer decorated styles point to additional connections with the eastern Andes. For instance, Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;pendant triangle\u0026rdquo; (CU63 and CU80) and dashed/dotted bar motifs (CU92 and CU71) strongly resemble Wayra Incised styles described from Chawin Punta and Kunturay in Cerro de Pasco (Brown 2022: 433), Wairajirca phase assemblages from Kotosh (Izumi and Sono 1963: Plate 88; Izumi and Terada 1972: Plate 42), and Jancao (Kanezaki et al. 2021: 245\u0026ndash;46; Matsumoto 2020: 55) in the Hu\u0026aacute;nuco Basin, and the Cave of the Owls Fine Ware, near Tingo Mar\u0026iacute;a (Lathrap and Roys 1963, Fig 5. i). Other possible imports include two different instances of incised black bottle chambers. Black wares, while known from Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Burger 1984; Lumbreras 1993), are rare at Canchas Uckro.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo investigate ceramic production and exchange at Canchas Uckro, we developed a broad-based sampling strategy, grounded in reflective light microscopy, followed by portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) and qualitative-thin section petrography. The procedures for each analytical phase are outlined below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReflective Light Microscopy and Sampling\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA handheld DinoLite microscope (Model #\u0026nbsp;AM4815ZTL) was used to conduct reflective light microscopy (RLM) and develop preliminary technological categories. Analysis followed established analytical procedures to differentiate ceramic pastes based on mineral and rock inclusions, temper size sorting, and grain distribution/compactness (Druc 2015). The RLM sample (n=160 of 666 diagnostic sherds, Nesbitt et al. 2021: 117) represents a mix of domestic and public contexts dated to 1100-800 BCE. We prioritized diagnostic sherds, incorporating both undecorated neckless ollas and short neck jars believed to represent the local assemblage, as well as less common decorated styles and suspected imports. Six preliminary paste groups were identified, including (1) felsic sand (n=59), (2) fine felsic sand (n=51), (3) tuff/igenous (n=33), (5) slate (n=11), (5) schist (n=4), and (6) a possible fine-paste outlier (n=1). For further discussion on the results of RLM, see Online Resource 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese preliminary groups served as the basis for a stratified random sample (n=56) representing Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s ceramic technological diversity. The sample incorporated at least 10 representatives from each of the three most common paste types from different site contexts to counter bias introduced by rare inclusions and generate a sufficiently large sample to generalize the results to the assemblage (Bishop et al. 1988; Rice 2015, 247; Wilson 1978). A total of 20 sherds in the sample are decorated, twelve of which possess zoned-hatching (n=7), modeling (n=1), pendant triangle (n=2), and other designs (n=2) possibly related to the upper Huallaga (see Figure 3); these materials were preferentially incorporated into the sample to determine whether or not these ceramics represented imported wares.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSemi-Quantitative portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/em\u003eWe conducted portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) analysis at the Tulane Center for Archaeology using a Bruker Tracer 5i. Though pXRF spectrometers generally have higher limits of detection (LOD) compared to instrumental neutron activation (INAA), inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and desk XRF (Speakman et al. 2011), a growing number of archaeometric studies demonstrate pXRF can accurately identify the same meaningful geochemical trends (Adlington et al. 2020; Frahm 2018; LeMoine and Halperin 2021; Mitchell et al. 2012). Furthermore, though pXRF is sensitive to sample preparation and results can be affected by surface coatings, surface topography, and temper size and distribution (Hunt and Speakman 2015), taking measurements from multiple sample regions can ensure acceptable precision and produce results that accurately represent bulk composition (Frahm 2018; Holmqvist 2017). We employed published analytical procedures following Holmqvist (2017) and Shugar (2013). All of Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s sherds were assayed at a minimum of 3 points (interior, exterior, and freshly cut surfaces, where available), for 120 seconds (60 seconds first beam, 60 seconds second beam), for a total minimum exposure time of 6 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll measurements were taken using the Bruker Analytics mud-rock calibration. Recent advancements in pXRF hardware and software have produced more precise internal calibrations that enhance semi-quantitative characterization of archaeological materials (Frahm 2018; Holmqvist 2017; Liritzis et al. 2020). A semi-quantitative approach facilitates this study\u0026rsquo;s relative sourcing goals \u0026ndash; that is, to assess assemblage geochemical variation and characterize the degree and extent of pottery distribution networks.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo calculate elemental concentrations, we averaged all measurements for each detected element for each specimen. During data processing, we calculated the relative standard error for each element using the Bruker mud-rock calibration and removed elements with a Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) \u0026gt;20%. We then converted the averaged parts-per-million (ppm) data to log (base 10) to standardize data and reduce the magnitude of variation between major, minor, and trace elements\u0026nbsp;(Baxter and Freestone 2006; Harbottle 1976: 45). We then conducted hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) to evaluate potential clustering trends, principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce data dimensionality, and HCA of the identified PCA components. These compositional clusters effectively hypothesize group memberships to be tested by more rigorous statistics, like discriminant function analysis (DFA) via Mahalanobis distance\u0026nbsp;(Baxter 2001: 135; Glascock 1992; Neff 1994). Mahalanobis distance calculates the probability that an individual case belongs to a group by removing samples from their initial clusters (as determined by HCA) and proposing/testing new group membership based on statistical probability, which we set at \u0026gt;5%\u0026nbsp;(Glascock 1992: 18, 20). Our final groups are displayed using the final canonical discriminant functions (CDFs) (Figure 3). A full\u0026nbsp;description of statistical procedures is available in Online Resource 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative Petrography\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFifty-three sherds were analyzed via ceramic thin-section petrography. Quality Thin Sections prepared all thin sections to the standard 30 \u0026micro;m thickness. Thin-section slides were analyzed by the first author at the Tulane Center for Archaeology under plane-polarized light (PPL) and cross-polarized light (XPL). Ceramic paste descriptions were prepared following a modified Whitbread method (Whitbread 1986; Whitbread 1995), as proposed by Quinn (2013), characterizing the clay matrix, voids, and aplastic mineral/rock inclusions.\u0026nbsp;Visual charts helped estimate the prevalence of identified inclusions.\u0026nbsp;Analysis was conducted blind, without reference to archaeological context, geochemical group, or ceramic style.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCeramic petro-groups were then linked to probable resource zones through comparisons with published geologic reports (Cueva Tintaya and Torres Gonz\u0026aacute;lez 2024; Quispesivana Quispe 1996b; 1996a; Wilson et al 1995a; Wilson et al. 1995b), prior archaeological investigations and petrographic studies from nearby sites (Druc 2001; 2004; 2016), and our own field surveys. Although the ethnographic literature indicates pottery manufacture typically occurs within thirty minutes of raw material sources (\u0026lt;3 km) (Druc 2013: 493), walking distances exceeding one hour are not uncommon for highland potters. Ethnoarchaeologists have documented raw material extraction at distances ~10-20 km (Ram\u0026oacute;n 1999: 226). Furthermore, prior ethnoarchaeological research in the southern Conchucos region found potters traveled up to four hours walking time to access specific raw material sources (Druc 2005; 2013: 499). Given the potential variability associated with raw material use (Druc 1996), we approach production through the concept of catchments: the geographic areas most likely associated with raw material extraction. We defined these zones using the spatial analyst distance accumulation tool, the hiking time function, and an SRTM digital elevation model to calculate approximate walking times. We use the 4 hour upper limit (Druc 2013) to define Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; catchment (~15-18 km) while areas within 10 walking hours (~26-40 km) were classified as regional, representing communities within a day\u0026rsquo;s walk (Contreras 2011), with whom the inhabitants of Canchas Uckro may have regularly interacted (see Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003epXRF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePCA and HCA identified two major compositional groups, roughly corresponding to the preliminary paste groups identified by RLM (Figure 4). Group 1 is associated with felsic sand, fine felsic sand, and tuff-tempered sherds, while Group 2 is associated with metamorphic pastes:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eslate, schist, and graphite (Figure 4), indicating there are at least two distinct production areas. Notably, all sherds with zoned-hatching motifs cluster with Group 1, the presumably local cluster. DFA reaffirmed the two compositional groups identified by PCA and HCA. These findings are statistically significant (Wilks\u0026rsquo; \u0026lambda; \u0026lt; 0.001), indicating good separation between Group 1, Group 2, and various outlier groups. In general, Group 2 ceramics exhibit high quantities of strontium (Sr) and calcium (Ca), elements associated with canonical discriminant function 1 (CDF1), while Group 1 ceramics are loaded more heavily with elements associated with CDF2, e.g. yittrium (Y) (Figure 5). Several outlier groups correspond to both stylistic and technological outliers. Mahalanobis distance based on all statistically-utilized elements identified two samples as definitive outliers: CU102 and CU107.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThin-Section Petrography\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of petrographic analysis parallel and improve our understanding of the pXRF findings (see Figure 6). Petrographic study indicates the Group 1 geochemical cluster is primarily associated with a single petro-group (Felsic Sediment). The Group 1 cluster is also associated with two additional petrographic groups (Tuff and Altered Volcanics). Although pXRF was not able to fully separate these geochemically similar groups, they do form two generally-cohesive geochemical subclusters within the Group 1 cluster, indicative of relative compositional consistency (see dark blue clusters, Figure 4).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, just one artifact \u0026ndash; CU86 \u0026ndash; was potentially mis-grouped by pXRF. Though CU86 clusters with pXRF Group 2, it is classified as the dominant paste type, typically associated with Group 1 (Figure 6). Petrography confirms that the geochemical outliers identified during statistical analysis are also technological outliers, potentially with non-local origins. These findings largely support and highlight pXRF as an effective tool for identifying geochemical variability within this ceramic assemblage. Below, we summarize the defining technological features and associated implications for each petro-group. A summary of petrographic and geochemical data is provided in Table 1. Extended petrographic descriptions are available through the Tulane Center for Archaeology (see data availability statement).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLocal Technological Style\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough abundance is not an unequivocal marker of local production (Day et al. 1999; Druc 2013; Heidke and Quinn 2009), the prevalence of the felsic tuff sediment (n=26, 49%) and its corresponding frequency in RLM suggests this paste recipe represents the dominant, if not local, technological style to Canchas Uckro. This group is characterized by moderately well-sorted inclusions of felsic to intermediate minerals, including quartz, plagioclase, opaques, hornblende, biotite, and tuff fragments with glassy to felsitic texture (Figure 7, I). Tuff fragments have a low frequency and are generally sub-angular to sub-rounded, suggesting they are potentially naturally occurring within the clay as a product of erosion. Although the rocks within the local procurement zone (e.g., 3.5-hour walking radius) are reportedly sedimentary, it is possible some facies may represent tuffaceous sandstones, in which tuff fragments are naturally occurring. Overall, the clay is well-mixed, and the associated vessels are well-made. They are\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCeramic Classification based on petrographic and geochemical data\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePetro-Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eForms and Decorations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMinerology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeochemistry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource Area\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFelsic Tuff Sediment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26(49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollared ollas, open jars, bowls, punctation, zoned dots, Wairajirca pendant triangle, zoned-hatching\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003equartz, green hornblende\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1, Group 6 (CU117), Group 2 (CU86)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTuff (Glassy Pumice)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8(15%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollared olla, open jar, zoned-hatching, zoned-hatching, zoned-dashing, pendant triangle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplagioclase, tuff (glassy pumice), quartz, biotite, hornblende\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuartz Muscovite Schist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-diagnostic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003equartz-muscovite schist, quartz\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlate 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-diagnostic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eslate, quartz, opaques, sandstone, orthoclase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGraphite Slate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-diagnostic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eopaque (graphite) slate, calcite, sandstone, slate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 2, Group 7 (CU118)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVitric Tuff\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarinated bowl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003etuff, quartz, plagioclase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional/Import?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlate 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlack-polished surface, line burnished design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eopaque slate,\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;quartz,\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;muscovite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional/Import?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAltered Intermediate Intrusive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRed polished slip\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplagioclase, quartz, hornblende, opaques, clinopyroxene, epidote, biotite, tuff\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExotic/Import\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCalcareous Sand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRed-orange slip\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003equartz, plagioclase, limestone, clinopyroxene, orthoclase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExotic/Import\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAltered Volcanics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLine burnishing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ealtered intermediate? extrusive, carbonate mudstone, epidote, plagioclase, quartz\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExotic/Import\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAltered Volcanic Groundmass\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlat-bottomed vessel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003evolcanic groundmass, quartz, plagioclase, altered orthoclase, sandstone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExotic/Import\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAltered Mixed Lithics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.27835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModeling, punctation, zoned-hatching, partially complete boat-shaped vessel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17.5258%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003equartz, plagioclase, dacite, limestone, orthoclase, hornblende, biotite, sandstone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19.5876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.4948%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExotic/Import\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003etypically fired in oxidizing conditions with red to buff vessel surfaces. Rare relic coils and the preferential parallel orientation of elongate mineral grains suggest a combination of shaping techniques (i.e. coiling, scraping and paddling) that have largely been obscured by later steps in the production process. \u0026nbsp;More notably, this petro-group is associated with five of the seven zoned-hatched sherds (CU65, CU83, CU94, CU114, CU115). These objects geochemically cluster with\u0026nbsp;Group 1, suggesting they were produced using local raw materials. While these results complicate our initial hypothesis on long-distance exchange, we consider the implications in our discussion.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Regional Assemblage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following petro-groups represent technological styles that are possibly from the Huaritambo, Mosna, and upper Puccha Valleys, within an approximate day\u0026apos;s walk (see Figure 2). Although these petro-groups are rare within the assemblage, there are geologic correlates within this sector of the Conchucos Region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePumice Tuff (n=8, 15%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe pumice tuff paste is defined by glassy, vesicular fragments of pumice inclusions (Figure 7, D). Temper inclusions are moderately sorted, with grains of plagioclase, hornblende, and biotite. Zoned plagioclase grains \u0026ndash; the byproduct of prolonged magma-cooling \u0026ndash; illustrate some mineral inclusions have volcanic origins. The presence of both green hornblende and pumice, which is typically of rhyolitic composition, may link these inclusions to the rhyolitic tuff reported near Antamina (Bodenlos and Ericksen 1955). Given the high quantity of this paste type, we suspect this petro-group may represent a secondary technological style associated with local production or, perhaps, frequent interaction. Notably, this pumice paste does not appear to match the volcanic tempers reported from Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Druc 1998: 73; 2004). Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s volcano-pyroclastic features coarse rhyolitic fragments, with visible phenocrysts of quartz, biotite, and hornblende. Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s pumice fragments, however, are comparatively glassy and vesicular with no visible mineral inclusions, altogether pointing to a distinct raw material source. One additional important finding is that, while CU107 was identified as a geochemical outlier (Group 5, Figure 5), it falls within this petro-group. We suspect this sherd\u0026rsquo;s well-polished, red-slipped surface skewed the geochemical findings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuartz Muscovite Schist (n=3, 6%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis group is dominated by inclusions of quartz muscovite schist. The bimodal distribution of angular rock fragments suggests this material ground and intentionally used as temper. Although schists are generally not reported within Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s catchment zone (Cueva Tintaya and Torres Gonz\u0026aacute;lez 2024), these inclusions are found in sherds from contexts dating to c. 650-400 BCE at Repar\u0026iacute;n, a site on the Huaritambo Valley (Nesbitt et al. 2020), suggesting this petro-group may have been produced in the Huaritambo valley. Although low quantities of quartz muscovite schist pastes were described at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Druc 1998: 73; 2004), mica inclusions exhibit an acicular texture that is notably distinct from the crenulation and strongly planar foliation associated with Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s schist petro-group. These mineralogical variations point to different metamorphic formation processes (i.e. distinct pressure conditions) that suggest different raw material sources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSlate 1 (n=4, 8%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Slate 1 petro-group is characterized by a poorly sorted, sub-angular slate temper, accompanied by quartz and opaque minerals, and rarer sandstone inclusions (Figure 7, B). Although the inclusions exhibit some variation in metamorphic grade, the mineralogy and color of the clay matrix suggest they may be compositionally related. Slate and slate-derived clays, locally known as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eshashal\u003c/em\u003e, can be found near the traditional potting communities of Acopalca and Yacya (Figure 2; Druc 2001, 2005). Though slates form the ridgeline just east of Canchas Uckro, these pastes are rare within the assemblage, suggesting they more likely\u0026nbsp;represent other potting communities within the Huaritambo/Upper Puccha Valley.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGraphite Slate (n=2, 4%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThis group contains a carbon-rich slate to slate temper that is totally opaque in thin-section (Figure 7, F), with a silvery surface and streak resembling graphite. The grain size distribution is bimodal, and the overall size-sorting is poor. While graphite schists are uncommon, anthracites (~75% carbon) have been reported in the area above Yacya\u0026nbsp;(Druc 2001, 2005), indicating high-carbon content tempers were available in the region. Again, this petro-group is rare within the assemblage, suggesting it may represent other potting communities within southwestern Conchucos.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOutliers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe remaining petro-groups are exceedingly rare within the assemblage and are believed to represent vessels imported to Canchas Uckro. In most cases, there are either few local geologic correlates or other significant technological differences that point to a distinct production process.\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSlate 2 (n=1, 2%, CU68)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Slate 2 petro-group is defined by slate inclusions with a high proportion of fissures and voids (Figure 7, C). This lack of compaction is unusual in the Canchas Uckro assemblage and suggests excessive clay shrinkage \u0026ndash; possibly indicative of compositional differences \u0026ndash; or a distinct shaping process. Geochemically, it is the \u003cem\u003eonly\u003c/em\u003e slate-tempered sherd that clusters with Group 1, the local assemblage. This finding suggests this sherd is compositionally distinct because it does \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e group with other slate-tempered wares (Group 2). Furthermore, this petro-group is associated with the single polished black-ware bottle with broad-line incised motifs These combined technological, geochemical, and stylistic distinctions suggest this sherd may represent an example of long-distance exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWell-Sorted Calcic Sand (n=1, CU70)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis outlier is characterized by a well-sorted sand temper, comprised of quartz, plagioclase, opaque minerals, microcline, and orthoclase feldspar. It possesses a distinct light red slip with roughly the same mineralogy, dominated by quartz and plagioclase inclusions. The clay matrix appears calcareous, with slight birefringent margins (Figure 7, L). However, the matrix is not optically active, indicating the clay minerals have fully vitrified under firing conditions exceeding 850\u0026deg;C (Quinn 2013:190-191), which is unique within our sample. In addition to these significant technological differences, CU70 is also a geochemical outlier (Group 3). The precise provenance, however, is unclear. Isabelle Druc reports a similar paste, comprised of well-sorted fine to medium-sized grains of quartz\u0026nbsp;and plagioclase\u0026nbsp;(Druc 2004: 356, 360)\u0026nbsp;in association with the Cajamarca-related Mosna style\u0026nbsp;(Lumbreras 1993; Lumbreras et al. 2003).\u0026nbsp;Red-on-orange bottles are also known from Huacaloma in contexts dating to c. 1000-800 BCE (Terada et al. 1982; Terada and Onuki 1985). Macroscopic descriptions of Huacaloma Red-on-Orange identified fine-grained inclusions of quartzite and feldspar in a compact gray paste (Terada and Onuki 1985: 103; see also Nesbitt et al. 2008: Figure 18f), resembling both the Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s Mosna style and Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s singular light red-slipped bottleneck.\u0026nbsp;These similarities may point to a northern highland source.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVitric Tuff (n=1, CU113)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/em\u003eThis group is defined by its vitric tuff inclusions (Figure 7, G), dark brown in PPL and totally opaque in XPL. The bimodal grain-size distribution and quartz-dominated fine-fraction suggests tuff was an added temper. Although this sherd geochemically clusters with CU70 (see above), it is technologically distinct. The associated vessel represents a carinated neckless olla form. These differences suggest a non-local origin, possibly with the eastern highlands.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntermediate Intrusive Sediment (n=2, CU99 and CU102)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paste contains igneous-derived mineral grains, including quartz and plagioclase, as well as clinopyroxene and, more rarely, epidote (Figure 7, J). The presence of epidote is notable because it is not associated with other previously-described ceramic pastes from the Conchucos region (Druc 1998, 2004). Epidote, however, is a common secondary mineral associated with metamorphic or hydrothermal alteration of plagioclase. Although epidote has been reported from several mines in highland Ancash, including Antamina (Redwood 2005), ceramics in this petro-group are both geochemical (Group 4) and stylistic outliers. Their relatively thin vessel walls feature a well-polished, red slip with well-sorted fine-grained quartz inclusions possibly associated with bottle fragments (e.g. CU102 is likely a bottle base). These technological distinctions collectively support a non-local origin.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAltered Cluster\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe following three petro-groups form a discrete subcluster within the Group 1 local geochemical cluster (Figure 5). Although our statistical analysis does not separate this group from the primary geochemical cluster, petrographic study indicates these sherds represent distinct petro-groups. \u003cem\u003eAll\u003c/em\u003e the artifacts in this cluster are decorated in some manner, exhibiting polished, unslipped surfaces. While CU89 is a fragment of the semi-complete, zone-hatched Wairajirca vessel from Structure 1\u0026rsquo;s hearth, other designs are more typical of highland assemblages, including zoned-burnishing (CU77), line-burnishing (CU101), modeled applique (CU72) and punctation (CU108). Although these mixed stylistic associations and the absence of comparative petrographic data complicate the provenance of these petro-groups, we suspect they represent exchange with areas further east.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAltered Volcanic (n=1, CU101)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis petro-group features feldspar-rich volcanic rock fragments and epidote, as well as carbonate mudstone, plagioclase, opaques, and quartz (Figure 7, H). This combination of inclusions is unique within the analyzed assemblage and points to a geologic landscape that combines several different lithofacies. It is possible this petro-group may be associated with the Hu\u0026aacute;nuco, where the geologic landscape combines limestones (Ambo Group), igneous rocks (Higueras Batholith), and extensive metamorphism and mineral alteration in association with the Mara\u0026ntilde;\u0026oacute;n Supergroup (Quispesivana Quispe 1996b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAltered Volcanic Groundmass (n=1, CU77)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis group contains volcanic groundmass, quartz, plagioclase, epidote, and sericitized feldspar (Figure 7, K). Alteration and damage to individual mineral grains is extensive. While this petro-group closely resembles the Altered Volcanic petro-group (above), it lacks the large epidote clusters and limestone inclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAltered Mixed Lithics (n=3, CU72, CU89, CU108)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis petro-group is defined by a combination of quartz, andesine (plagioclase), rounded limestone fragments, intrusive tonalite clusters, and volcanic tuff fragments, with orthopyroxene, hornblende, and biotite inclusions (Figure 7, E). Mineral grains, like feldspar, show some evidence of embayment and alteration, and epidote is again present in low quantities. The coarse fraction, however, is comparatively well-sorted. Although pXRF does not geochemically differentiate these materials from the dominant technological style, the multiple realted petro-groups, distinct boat-like vessel form (CU89), and precise implementation of non-local motifs may suggest these artifacts were brought to Canchas Uckro from elsewhere.\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results have important implications for understanding ceramic production and exchange in Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s hinterland between c. 1100 and 800 BCE. It is important to recognize that the twelve petro-groups described in this study (see Table 1) likely represent multiple technological styles, all of which appear to have been separate from early phases of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar\u0026rsquo;s ceramic production. Local production at Canchas Uckro is primarily associated with a single technological style: the felsic tuff sediment petro-group (n=25), associated with neckless ollas and short-neck jars, as well as a small quantity of zoned-hatched vessels. Although this paste somewhat resembles the fine sedimentary paste identified at Chav\u0026iacute;n, which Druc characterized as \u0026ldquo;partly local\u0026rdquo; (2004: 349), there are several important distinctions - principally the inclusion of sub-rounded tuff fragments. A nearly identical petro-group was identified at the early component (c. 650-400 BCE) of Repar\u0026iacute;n, located approximately 13 km northwest of Canchas Uckro. Given these sites\u0026rsquo; proximity to one another and their similar geologic settings, it is possible a shared technological tradition developed within the Huaritambo and upper Puccha Valleys that was distinct from ceramic production at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Druc 1998, 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur petrographic study separated three additional petro-groups from the overarching Group 1 geochemical cluster, including the slate-tempered black ware bottle fragment (n=1), the tuff-tempered wares (n=8), and altered volcanics/mixed lithologies group (n=5). Although volcanic rocks have not been identified near Canchas Uckro in prior geologic maps (Wilson et al. 1995), rhyolitic tuff has been reported south near the Antamina mine (Figure 2; Cobbing et al. 1981; Egeler and De Booy 1956), an area previously identified as one of several possible production zones for Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (Druc 2004: 361). It is important to stress, however, that the Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s volcanoclastic petro-groups thus far do not match the volcanic pastes from Canchas Uckro (Druc 1998, 73, Ch-C1). Furthermore, the Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s tuff petro-group includes at least three Wairajirca-related motifs, including zoned-dashing (CU92), pendant triangle (CU63), and zoned-hatching (CU93). The lack of Wairajirca-related motifs in Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s ceramic corpus suggest this raw material source was not within the Mosna Valley. The quantity of tuff-tempered wares in the RLM component of the study (n=33, 21%) further suggests this paste may represent a secondary local paste recipe associated with both highland vessel forms and Wairajirca-related zone-hatched motifs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLess common metamorphic-related pastes, associated with the Group 2 geochemical cluster, demonstrate that the inhabitants of Canchas Uckro obtained vessels from other communities within the Conchucos region. Although\u0026nbsp;graphite, slate, and schist-tempered ceramics overlap within this compositional cluster, this trend is expected, given that minor variation in carbon content partially reflects slate\u0026rsquo;s inherent compositional variability (Druc 2001). Similar slate and schist paste types have been identified in greater abundance at Repar\u0026iacute;n, further suggesting close social and economic ties within the immediate upper Puccha and Huaritambo Valleys. While schist-tempered mica pastes were reported by Druc within the Chav\u0026iacute;n assemblage, they comprise only 3.7% of the analyzed corpus and were interpreted as non-local. However, Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s schist pastes feature acicular mica inclusions that are texturally distinct from the crenulated quartz-muscovite-schist pastes described in this study, pointing to different metamorphic conditions and distinct raw material source. These technological differences further support separation between ceramic production at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar and Canchas Uckro.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the presence of other technological outliers point to interactions with other regions of highland Peru, such as Cajamarca. These instances of long-distance exchange are represented by well-made pottery exhibiting non-local designs, rare vessel forms, and/or conspicuous finishing techniques primarily associated with bottle fragments (e.g. CU68, CU70, CU99, CU102, and CU113). It is important to stress that these unusual pastes were intentionally incorporated through disproportionate stratified sampling. In the context of the whole assemblage, however, such trade wares are rare. While this finding matches a broader pattern identified by archaeometric study of other late Initial Period and Early Horizon ceramic assemblages\u0026nbsp;(Inokuchi and Druc 2019; Young 2023), it notably contrasts with the frequency of trade wares at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, where as much as 30% of the ceramic assemblage was described as non-local\u0026nbsp;(Druc 1998, 2004: 345). Given the rarity of probable trade wares at Canchas Uckro, we believe these technological and geochemical outliers represent either rare direct exchange or, perhaps more likely, down-the-line, indirect interactions\u0026nbsp;(Nesbitt et al. 2021; sensu Renfrew 1975)\u0026nbsp;through increasingly connected socioeconomic networks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s proximity to Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, ceramic vessel forms and raw material sources remain relatively distinct. Decorative stylistic choices likewise emphasize zoned-hatching and other motifs related to the eastern Andean highlands.\u0026nbsp;Most of these ceramics were likely made around Canchas Uckro, given that nine (CU65, CU71, CU80, CU83, CU91, CU94, CU95, CU114, CU115) of the thirteen (CU63, CU89, CU92, CU93) group both petrographically and geochemically with the local technological style. Although decorative choices, like incised designs and finishing techniques, can be prone to rapid change (Gosselain 2000; 2008; Roux et al. 2017; Stark et al. 2008), the strong stylistic resemblance and, in several cases, replication of Wairajirca vessel forms (e.g. CU95, CU89), surface treatment, distinct reduced-firing conditions, and post-fire red pigment require further consideration. This combination of technological differences suggests we must consider that non-local potters made the zoned-hatched Wairajirca-related styles using local raw materials.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthnoarchaeologists in the Andes have identified several types of ceramic production by migrating specialists, termed itinerant, or \u0026ldquo;swallow\u0026rdquo; production (Ram\u0026oacute;n 2011; see also Ram\u0026oacute;n and Bell 2013; Ram\u0026oacute;n 1999; 2013) . These production modes, however, are typically marked by the manufacture of local styles in non-local raw materials (Druc 2013; Ram\u0026oacute;n 2011; Sillar 2000), providing a poor match for the present archaeological data. Furthermore, an itinerant production model assumes pottery manufacture was specialized (Ram\u0026oacute;n 2011:171), contrasting with the numerous probable potting communities suggested by this study. While the production of Wairajirca-related sherds may have been specialized to some degree, given their low quantity and presumably ritual function (Nesbitt et al. 2021), there are other possible explanations. Wairajirca-related designs may have been made by non-local ceramicists, as eastern highland peoples either migrated to or intermarried with residents of Canchas Uckro\u0026nbsp;(e.g. Mills 2018). This kind of mobility was potentially inherent to the social landscape at this time, c. 1100-800 BCE, as long-distance exchange intensified throughout much of the central Andes\u0026nbsp;(Young 2023; Matsumoto and Cavero Palomino 2023). Furthermore, by attributing at least some of these vessels to the movement of actual people, we may better explain how certain technological innovations, such as reduced-firing, were incorporated into Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s local technological repertoire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior archaeological study suggests the adoption of such technological innovations is related to both the visibility of the technology and its performative role (Mills 2018; Rogers 2003). While objects used in both public and private spaces can facilitate technological transmission, those that are highly visible or enhance status \u0026ndash; such as serving vessels employed in public performances \u0026ndash; are particularly effective tools in promoting the acceptance of new technologies and related social practices\u0026nbsp;(Mills 2018: 1057). At Canchas Uckro, Wairajirca-related vessels are found in multiple contexts, including domestic spaces \u0026ndash; as is the case of the partially-complete vessel (CU89) \u0026ndash; as well as refuse layers between the platforms\u0026rsquo; two major construction events, interpreted as the remnants of feasting or communal consumption events\u0026nbsp;(Nesbitt 2023: 94). From this perspective, the incorporation of specific elements of Wairajirca\u0026rsquo;s technological and stylistic innovations into the \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; lexicon could have been facilitated by the inherent visibility of this ceramic style\u0026rsquo;s decorative motifs, as well as these vessel\u0026rsquo;s presumably specialized function and probable involvement in public feasting events\u0026nbsp;(Nesbitt et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough there are several potential production scenarios associated with Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; Wairajirca component, on a broader scale, it is clear a \u0026quot;zoned-hatched interaction sphere\u0026quot; did connect parts of the central Andes (Nesbitt et al. 2021: 122). Zoned-hatching is found throughout the central Andean highlands, from the Callej\u0026oacute;n de Huaylas (Burger 1985), to the Huallaga (Brown 2022, 117, 453\u0026ndash;54; Izumi and Sono 1963; Izumi and Terada 1972), and Conchucos regions, potentially serving as a marker of participation in the social and ideological networks closely tied to the eastern highlands and the tropical forests (Izumi 1971; Kanezaki et al. 2021; Kano 1979; Lathrap 1971; Nesbitt et al. 2021). The complete lack of these ceramic styles at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, however, ultimately presents a patchy distribution that underscores the complexity of the social processes facilitating its transmission. While craft production can be a means of reproducing and maintaining social identity, it is also a realm of active negotiation, in which people can choose to participate in \u0026ndash; or reject \u0026ndash; specific social and economic relationships (Bowser 2000; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Roux et al. 2017; Stark et al. 2008). Such intentional choices may not only explain the distribution of zoned-hatched styles in the central Andes, but also the lack of both Chav\u0026iacute;n-related designs and Chav\u0026iacute;n-related technological styles at Canchas Uckro at this time, despite these sites\u0026rsquo; proximity and shared architectural features. The uneven distribution Wairajirca-related designs, in combination with Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s apparent independence from Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, collectively point to the development of multiple, potentially competing interaction networks.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eBetween 1100 and 800 BCE, Canchas Uckro was embedded in a network of intra- and inter-regional interactions, involving the movement of people, physical objects, and technological innovations. The vast majority of Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s ceramic assemblage associated with this period appears to have been locally made (80-85%\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e). This local assemblage includes a subset of decorated wares closely resembling eastern Andean Wairajirca ceramic style. We argue that the replication of a non-local style in local raw materials may indicate that people from the Mara\u0026ntilde;on or upper Huallaga were incorporated within Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s community, facilitating the spread of a specific pottery style along with symbolically-charged decorations. This kind of social movement was perhaps inherent to the social landscape at this time. Within the Huaritambo and Upper Puccha Valleys, these kinds of movements are materialized by more frequent instances of ceramic exchange (~10%), as well as regionally-shared technological styles and ceramic paste recipes, which document the exploitation of similar raw materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite evidence of other inter-and intra-regional ties, comparison with Chav\u0026iacute;n\u0026rsquo;s ceramic petro-groups, vessel forms, and other available archaeometric data (Druc 1998; 2004; Lumbreras et al. 2003) suggests that Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s ceramic production was largely independent from the early phases of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar. At present, there are no compositional or petrographic correlations connecting these two sites, with the exception of the single possible Red-on-Orange Huacaloma-related bottle fragment. Although a small portion of Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s ceramic assemblage, namely rare bottle fragments (2-4%) and possible Huallaga-related wares (2-4%), indicate that ceramics from other parts of the Andean highlands occasionally reached the site, the low quantities of these sherds suggest they moved through infrequent, down-the-line exchange networks, and not necessarily those centered at Chav\u0026iacute;n. Altogether, stylistic and technological differences between Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s and Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar\u0026rsquo;s ceramic assemblages suggests Canchas Uckro\u0026rsquo;s residents chose to prioritize and maintain their social and economic ties with the eastern highlands c. 1100-800 BCE. Collectively, these data underscore the social and economic complexity of the late second millennium BCE, as interaction networks expanded across much of the central Andes, reached into the Upper Amazon (Church 2021; DeBoer 2003; Nesbitt et al. 2021; Seki 2023), and set the stage for the rapid growth of the Chav\u0026iacute;n phenomenon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to express our gratitude to Jordi Benites Segura, Carlos Escobar Silva, Jorge Champi, and Jhon Cruz Qui\u0026ntilde;ones for their invaluable support and collaboration in the field. Artifact export was facilitated by Jordi Benites Segura, under permit N\u0026deg;01-2023-DCIA-LHF/MC, granted by the Ministerio de Cultural del Per\u0026uacute;. Financial support provided by the the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship facilitated preliminary field work. Financial support provided by the Rust Family Foundation (RFF-2021-168) enabled thin-section slide preparation, while the Louisiana Board of Regents Targeted Enhancement Research Grant facilitated the purchase of the Bruker5i portable X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer used in this project. The writing of this manuscript was supported by the Tulane University Dissertation Completion Fellowship. These institutions\u0026rsquo; generous funding made this project possible. Special thanks go to Tatsuya Murakami, Sarah Gilleland, Franco Zani Jr., and Shannon Torrens, whose feedback on earlier drafts of this paper greatly improved the final manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCRediT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRachel Johnson: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, review \u0026amp; editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Data Validation, Data curation\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Bebel Ibarra Asencios: Project Administration, Resources, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Data Validation, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJason Nesbitt: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, review \u0026amp; editing, Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJulia Sj\u0026ouml;dahl: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing - review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMinJoo Choi: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of competing interest:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe raw pXRF geochemical data and full-length descriptions of ceramic petrographic types presented in this paper are housed in the data archives of the Tulane Center for Archaeology. Please contact Rachel Johnson ([email protected]) or Jason Nesbitt ([email protected]) to access these data files. Site locations (DMS), results from reflective light microscopic (RLM) analysis, and a full description of the statistical treatment of the pXRF data are available as supplementary information.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdlington LW, Gratuze B, Schibille N (2020) Comparison of pXRF and LA-ICP-MS Analysis of Lead-Rich Glass Mosaic Tesserae. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 34:102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102603\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnold DE (2000) Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes Really Mean Specialization? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4): 333\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026570906712\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaxter MJ (2001) Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. In: Brothwell D, Pollard Am (eds) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Wiley, New York, pp. 681-90.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaxter MJ, Freestone I (2006) Log-Ratio Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeometry. Archaeometry 48(3): 511\u0026ndash;31.\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2006.00270.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBishop RL, Canouts V, De Atley SP, Q\u0026ouml;yawayma A, Aikins CW (1988) The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups: Hopi Pottery Production and Exchange, A.C. 1300-1600. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3): 317\u0026ndash;37. https://doi.org/10.2307/530312\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBodenlos AJ, Ericksen GE (1955) Lead-Zinc Deposits of Cordillera Blanca and Northern Cordillera Huayhuash, Peru. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1017, United States Geological Survey (USGS), Washington DC.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowser BJ (2000) From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 219\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510620824.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown NE (2022) Ancient Andean Archipelagos: Human Interaction and Social Innovation at Chawin Punta and Kunturay in the East-Central Highlands of Pasco, Peru. Dissertation, Yale University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurger RL (1982) Pojoc and Waman Wain: Two Early Horizon Villages in the Chavin Heartland.\u0026rdquo; \u0026Ntilde;awpa Pacha 20(1): 3\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1179/naw.1982.20.1.002. (1984) The Prehistoric Occupation of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, Peru. University of California Press, Los Angeles. (1985) Prehistoric Stylistic Change and Cultural Development at Huaricoto, Peru. National Geographic Research 1:505\u0026ndash;34. (1992) Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. Thames and Hudson, London. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChurch W (2021) A Record of Early Long-Distance Societal Interaction from Manachaqui Cave in Peru\u0026rsquo;s Northeastern Andes. In: Clasby R, Nesbitt J (eds) The Archaeology of the Upper Amazon: Complexity and Interaction in the Andean Tropical Forest. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 38-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCobbing EJ, Pitcher WS, Wilson JJ, Baldock JW, Taylor WP, McCourt W, Snelling NJ (1981) The Geology of the Western Cordillera of Northern Peru. Oversea Memoir 5, Institute of Geological Sciences, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCobbing EJ, S\u0026aacute;nchez Fern\u0026aacute;ndez A, Mart\u0026iacute;nez Valladares W, Z\u0026aacute;rate Olazabal H (1996) Geolog\u0026iacute;a de los cuadr\u0026aacute;ngulos de Huaraz, Recuay, La Uni\u0026oacute;n, Chiqui\u0026aacute;n y Yanahuanca. Hojas: 20-h, 20-i, 20-j, 21-i, 21-j. Bolet\u0026iacute;n, Serie A: Carta Geol\u0026oacute;gica Nacional 76, Institute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eContreras DA (2011) How Far to Conchucos? A GIS Approach to Assessing the Implications of Exotic Materials at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar. World Archaeology 43:380\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011.605841 (2015) Landscape Setting as Medium of Communication at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, Peru. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(2): 513\u0026ndash;30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977431400081X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCueva Tintaya E, Torres Gonz\u0026aacute;lez D (2024) Geolog\u0026iacute;a de los cuadr\u0026aacute;ngulos de Huari (hojas 19i1, 19i2, 19i3, 19i4) y Singa (hojas 19j3, 19j4). Bolet\u0026iacute;n Serie L: Carta Geol\u0026oacute;gica a Nacional 56, Institute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDay PM, Kiriatzi E, Tsolakidou A, Kilikoglou V (1999) Group Therapy in Crete: A Comparison Between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Minoan Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(8): 1025\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0424\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeBoer W (2003) Ceramic Assemblage Variability in the Formative of Ecuador and Peru. In: Raymond JS, Burger RL (eds) The Archaeology of Formative Ecuador. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington DC, pp. 289-336.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiessl W (2004) Sitios Arqueol\u0026oacute;gicos en los distritos de Chav\u0026iacute;n, Hu\u0026aacute;ntar y San Marcos. In: Ibarra Asencios B (ed) Arqueolog\u0026iacute;a de la sierra de Ancash: propuestas y perspectivas. Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima, pp.331-370.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDietler M, Herbich I (1998) Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In: Stark MT (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp. 232-236.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDobres M (2000) Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDruc IC (1996) De la Etnograf\u0026iacute;a Hacia la Arqueolog\u0026iacute;a: Aportes de Entrevistas Con Ceramistas de Ancash (Per\u0026uacute;) para la Caracterizaci\u0026oacute;n de la Cer\u0026aacute;mica Prehisp\u0026aacute;nica. Bulletin de l\u0026rsquo;Institut Francais d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Andins 25:17-41. https://doi.org/10.3406/bifea.1996.1222 (1998) Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Chav\u0026iacute;n Sphere of Influence (North-Central Andes). British Archaeological Reports International Series 731, BAR Publishing, Oxford. (2001) \u0026iquest;Shashal o no shashal? Esa es la cuesti\u0026oacute;n Etnoarqueolog\u0026iacute;a cer\u0026aacute;mica en la zona de Huari, Ancash. Bulletin de l\u0026rsquo;Institut Fran\u0026ccedil;ais d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Andines 30(1): 157\u0026ndash;73. https://doi.org/10.4000/bifea.7349 (2004) Ceramic Diversity in Chav\u0026iacute;n De Huantar, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 15(3): 344\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.2307/4141578 (2005) Producci\u0026oacute;n cer\u0026aacute;mica y etnoarqueolog\u0026iacute;a en Conchucos, Ancash, Per\u0026uacute;. Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima. (2013) What Is Local? Looking at Ceramic Production in the Peruvian Highlands and Beyond. Journal of Anthropological Research 69(4): 485\u0026ndash;513. https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0069.404 (2015) Portable Digital Microscope. Atlas of Ceramic Pastes: Components, Texture and Technology. Deep University Press, Blue Mounds, WI. (2016) La cer\u0026aacute;mica tard\u0026iacute;a de Marcajirca, Conchucos, \u0026Aacute;ncash: lo que nos ense\u0026ntilde;an los estudios petrogr\u0026aacute;ficos. Bulletin de l\u0026rsquo;Institut Fran\u0026ccedil;ais d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Andines 45(2): 327\u0026ndash;52. https://doi.org/10.4000/bifea.8014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEgeler C, De Booy T (1956) Geology and Petrology of Part of the Southern Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Geology Series 19:1\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrahm E (2018) Ceramic Studies Using Portable XRF: From Experimental Tempered Ceramics to Imports and Imitations at Tell Mozan, Syria. Journal of Archaeological Science 90:12\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.12.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGandon E, Nonaka T, Endler JA, Coyle T, Bootsma RJ. 2020. Traditional Craftspeople Are Not Copycats: Potter Idiosyncrasies in Vessel Morphogenesis. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239362\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlascock MD (1992) Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Nuetron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In: Neff H (ed) Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Monographs in World Archaeology, Prehistory Press, Madison WI, pp.11-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGosselain O (2000) Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:187\u0026ndash;217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026558503986 (2008) Mother Bella Was Not a Bella. Inherited and Transformed Traditions in Southwestern Niger. In Stark MT, Bowser BJ, Horne L (eds.) Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking down Boundaries/ University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 150-177.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarbottle G (1976) Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeidke J (2009) Multi-Village Specialized Craft Production and the Distribution of Hohokam Sedentary Period Pottery, Tucson, Arizona. In Quinn PS (ed.) Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 227-244. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2m7c521.17\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolmqvist E (2017) Handheld Portable Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (pXRF). In Hunt AM (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis/ Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 363-381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199681532.013.41\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunt AM, Speakman RJ (2015) Portable XRF Analysis of Archaeological Sediments and Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 53:626\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.031\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIbarra Asencios B (ed.) (2004) Arqueolog\u0026iacute;a de la sierra de Ancash: propuestas y perspectivas, Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInokuchi K, Druc IC (2019) Socioeconomic Transformations at the Ceremonial Center of Kuntur Wasi: Raw Materials, Craft Production, and Leadership. In Burger RL, Salazar LC, Seki Y (eds.) Perspectives on Early Andean Civilization in Peru: Interaction, Authority, and Socioeconomic Organization during the First and Second Millennia BC. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 94, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 83-96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIzumi S (1971) The Development of the Formative Culture in the Ceja de Monta\u0026ntilde;a: A Viewpoint Based on the Materials from the Kotosh Site. In Benson EP (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chav\u0026iacute;n. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 49-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIzumi S, Cuculiza P, Kano C (1972) Excavations at Shillacoto, Hu\u0026aacute;nuco, Peru. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIzumi S, Sono T (1963) Andes 2 Excavations at Kotosh, Peru 1960. Kadokawa Publishing Company, Tokyo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIzumi S, Terada K (1972) Excavations at Kotosh, Peru: A Report on the Third and Fourth Expeditions. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanezaki Y, Omori T, Tsurumi E (2021) Emergence and Development of Pottery in the Andean Early Formative Period: New Insights from an Improved Wairajirca Pottery Chronology at the Jancao Site in the Hu\u0026aacute;nuco Region, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 32(2): 239\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2020.89\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKano C (1979) The Origins of the Chav\u0026iacute;n Culture. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 22, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKembel SR (2008) The Architecture at the Monumental Center of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar: Sequence, Transformations, and Chronology. In: Conklin WJ, Quilter J (eds.) Chav\u0026iacute;n: Art, Architecture, and Culture. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp. 35-84.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLathrap D (1970) The Upper Amazon. Thames and Hudson, London.(1971) The Tropical Forest and the Cultural Context of Chav\u0026iacute;n. In Benson EP (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chav\u0026iacute;n. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 73-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLathrap D, Roys L (1963) The Archaeology of the Cave of the Owls in the Upper Montana of Peru. American Antiquity 29(1): 27\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.2307/278628\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLechtman H, Merrill RS (eds.) (1977) Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, West Publishing Company, St. Paul.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeMoine J, Halperin, CT (2021) Comparing INAA and pXRF Analytical Methods for Ceramics: A Case Study with Classic Maya Wares. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36:102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102819\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLe\u0026oacute;n G\u0026oacute;mez M (1996) El S\u0026iacute;nodo de Piscobamba en la Historia de la Evangelizaci\u0026oacute;n del Callejon de Conchucos. In: Villanueva Delgado J, Le\u0026oacute;n G\u0026oacute;mez M, Pini Rodolfi F (eds.) Presencia de Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo en el Callej\u0026oacute;n de Conchucos, Ancash, Peru: Prelatura de Huari, Peru, pp. 112-278.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiritzis I, Xanthopoulou V, Palamara E, Papageorgiou I, Iliopoulos I, Zacharias N, Vafiadou A, Karydas AG (2020) Characterization and Provenance of Ceramic Artifacts and Local Clays from Late Mycenaean Kastrouli (Greece) by Means of p-XRF Screening and Statistical Analysis. Journal of Cultural Heritage 46:61\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.06.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLumbreras LG (1993) Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar: Excavaciones En La Galer\u0026iacute;a de Las Ofrendas. P. von Zabern, Germany.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLumbreras LG, Gebhard R, H\u0026auml;usler W, Kauffmann-Doig F, Riederer FJ, Sieben G, Wagner U (2003) M\u0026ouml;ssbauer Study of Ceramic Finds from the Galer\u0026iacute;a de Las Ofrendas, Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar. Hyperfine Interactions 150(1\u0026ndash;4): 51\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYPE.0000007214.89534.37\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatsumoto Y (2020) Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Huallaga Basin, Peru. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 95, Yale University Press, New Haven.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatsumoto Y, Cavero Palomino Y (2023) Campanayuq Rumi and the Southern Periphery of the Chav\u0026iacute;n Phenomenon. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chav\u0026iacute;n Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 359-392.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMes\u0026iacute;a-Montenegro C (2022) Social Complexity and Core-Periphery Relationships in an Andean Formative Ceremonial Centre: Domestic Occupation at Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar. Antiquity 96(388): 883\u0026ndash;902. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.73\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMills BJ (2018) Intermarriage, Technological Diffusion, and Boundary Objects in the U.S. Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25(4): 1051\u0026ndash;86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9392-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell D, Grave P, Maccheroni M, Gelman E (2012) Geochemical Characterisation of North Asian Glazed Stonewares: A Comparative Analysis of NAA, ICP-OES and Non-Destructive pXRF. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(9): 2921\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.044\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeff H (1994) Rq-Mode Principal Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data. Archaeometry 36(1): 115\u0026ndash;30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1994.tb01068.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesbitt J (2023) Archaeological Investigations in the Chavin Heartland: New Perspectives from Canchas Uckro. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chav\u0026iacute;n Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 81\u0026ndash;109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesbitt J, Guti\u0026eacute;rrez B, V\u0026aacute;squez S (2008) Excavaciones en Huaca Cortada, complejo de Caballo Muerto, valle de Moche: un informe preliminar. Bolet\u0026iacute;n de Arqueolog\u0026iacute;a PUCP, 12: 261\u0026ndash;86. https://doi.org/10.18800/boletindearqueologiapucp.200801.012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesbitt J, Ibarra Asencios B (2023) The Radiocarbon Chronology of Canchas Uckro: Implications for Understanding the Late Initial Period (1100\u0026ndash;800 BC) in the Chav\u0026iacute;n Heartland. In: Seki Y (ed.) New Perspectives on the Early Formation of the Andean Civilization: Chronology, Interaction, and Social. Senri Ethnological Studies 112, pp. 169-196. https://doi.org/10.15021/00010050.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesbitt J, Ibarra Asencios B, Tokanai F (2020) The Architecture and Chronology of Reparin, Eastern Ancash, Peru. \u0026Ntilde;awpa Pacha 40(1): 41\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00776297.2019.1666535\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesbitt J, Johnson R, Ibarra Asencios B (2021) Connections Between the Chavin Heartland and the Ceja de Selva in the Late Initial Period: New Evidence from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BC). In: Clasby R, Nesbitt J (eds.) The Archaeology of the Upper Amazon: Complexity and Interaction in the Andean Tropical Forest. University Press of Florida, Gainseville, pp. 106\u0026ndash;28. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuinn PS (2013) Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery \u0026amp; Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Archaeopress, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1jk0jf4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuispesivana Quispe LJ (1996) Geolog\u0026iacute;a del cuadr\u0026aacute;ngulo de Hu\u0026aacute;nuco. Hoja: 20-k. Bolet\u0026iacute;n, Serie A, Carta Geol\u0026oacute;gica Nacional 75, Institute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRam\u0026oacute;n G\u003cbr\u003e (1999) Producci\u0026oacute;n alfarera en Santo Domingo de los Olleros (Huarochir\u0026iacute; - Lima).\u0026rdquo; Bulletin de l\u0026rsquo;Institut Fran\u0026ccedil;ais d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Andines 28(2): 215\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.3406/bifea.1999.1354\u003cbr\u003e (2011) The Swallow Potters: Seasonally Migratory Styles in the Andes. In: Scarcella S (ed.) Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2193, BAR Publishing, Oxford, pp. 160-175. (2013) Las fuentes del estilo: distribuci\u0026oacute;n regional de canteras y t\u0026eacute;cnicas alfareras en Conchucos (Ancash, Per\u0026uacute;). Bulletin de l\u0026rsquo;Institut Fran\u0026ccedil;ais d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Andines 42(1): 29\u0026ndash;90. https://doi.org/10.4000/bifea.1061\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRam\u0026oacute;n G, Bell M (2013) Re-Placing Plainware: Production and Distribution of Domestic Pottery, and the Narration of the Pre-Colonial Past in the Peruvian Andes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32(4): 595\u0026ndash;613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.09.005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRedwood SD (2005) Geology and Development History of the Antamina Copper-Zinc Skarn Deposit, Peru. In: Sillitoe RH, Perell\u0026oacute; J, Vidal CE (eds.) Andean Metallogeny. Society of Economic Geologists, Colorado, pp. 259-277. https://doi.org/10.5382/SP.11.14\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRenfrew C (1975) Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In: Sabloff JA, Lamberg-Karlovsky CC (eds.) Ancient Civilization and Trade. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 3-59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRice PM (2015) Pottery Analysis, Second Edition: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRick JW (2005) The Evolution of Authority and Power at Chavin de Huantar, Peru. In: Vaughn KJ, Ogburn D, Conlee CA (eds.) Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, pp. 71-89.\u003cbr\u003e (2008) Context, Construction, and Ritual in the Development of Authority at Chavin de Huantar. In: Conklin WJ, Quilter J (eds.) Chavin: Art, Architecture, and Culture. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, pp. 3-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdmwx21\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Simon and Schuster, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoux V, Bril B, Cauliez J, Goujon A, Lara C, Manen C, de Saulieu G, Zangato E (2017) Persisting Technological Boundaries: Social Interactions, Cognitive Correlations and Polarization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48:320\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.09.004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoux V, Courty M (2013) Introduction to Discontinuities and Continuities: Theories, Methods and Proxies for a Historical and Sociological Approach to Evolution of Past Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(2): 187\u0026ndash;93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9170-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSayre M, Rosenfeld S (2023) A River Runs through It: Ritual and Inequality in the La Banda Sector of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Huantar. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chav\u0026iacute;n Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp 61-79.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeki Y (2023) The Establishment of Power in the Formative Period of the North Highlands of Peru. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chav\u0026iacute;n Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp 141-172. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShugar AN (2013) Portable X-Ray Fluorescence and Archaeology: Limitations of the Instrument and Suggested Methods To Achieve Desired Results. In: Armitage RA, Burton JH (eds.) Archaeological Chemistry VIII. ACS Symposium Series 1147, American Chemical Society, pp. 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1147.ch010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSillar B (2000) Dung by Preference: The Choice of Fuel as an Example of How Andean Pottery Production Is Embedded within Wider Technical, Social, and Economic Practices. Archaeometry 42 (1): 43\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00865.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeakman RJ, Little NC, Creel D, Miller MR, I\u0026ntilde;a\u0026ntilde;ez JG. 2011. Sourcing Ceramics with Portable XRF Spectrometers? A Comparison with INAA Using Mimbres Pottery from the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(12): 3483\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStark MT, Bowser BJ, Horne L (eds.) (2008) Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2phprdh\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTello JC (1943) Discovery of the Chav\u0026iacute;n Culture in Peru. American Antiquity 9(1): 135\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.2307/275457.\u003cbr\u003e (1960) Chav\u0026iacute;n, cultura matriz de la civilizaci\u0026oacute;n andina. University of San Marcos, Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerada K, Onuki Y (1985) The Formative Period in the Cajamarca Basin, Peru: Excavations at Huacaloma and Layzon, 1982. Report 3 of the Japanese Scientific Expedition to Nuclear America, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerada K, Onuki Y, Ushino T, Matsumoto R, Seki Y, Kato Y, Ninomiya S, et al. (1982) Excavations at Huacaloma in the Cajamarca Valley, Peru, 1979. Report 2 of the Japanese Scientific Expedition to Nuclear America, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitbread IK (1986) The Characterisation of Argillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry 28 (1): 79\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1986.tb00376.x\u003cbr\u003e (1995) Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study, First American Edition. British School at Athens, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson AL (1978) Elemental Analysis of Pottery in the Study of Its Provenance: A Review. Journal of Archaeological Science 5(3): 219\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(78)90041-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson J, Molina O, Sanchez Fernandez AW (1995) Mapa Geol\u0026oacute;gico Del Cuadr\u0026aacute;ngulo de Huari, 19-i.\u0026rdquo; Mapa Geol\u0026oacute;gico del Cuandrangulo de Huari. Bolet\u0026iacute;n, Serie A: Carta Geol\u0026oacute;gica Nacional. Intitute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson J, Reyes Rivera L, Garayar S. J (1995) Geolog\u0026iacute;a de los cuadr\u0026aacute;ngulos de Pallasca, Tayabamba, Corongo, Pomabamba, Carhuaz y Huari. Hojas: 17-h, 17-i,18-h, 18-i, 19-h, y 19-i. Bolet\u0026iacute;n, Serie A: Carta Geol\u0026oacute;gica Nacional 60. Intitute of Geology, Mining, and Metallurgy (INGEMMET), Lima.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWise J, Nobel D (2003) Geomorphic Evolution of the Cordillera Blanca, Northern Peru. Boletin de La Sociedad Geologica Del Peru 96:65\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoung M (2023) Horizon, Interaction Sphere, Cult? A View of the Chavin Phenomenon from Huancavelica. In: Burger RL, Nesbitt J (eds.) Reconsidering the Chav\u0026iacute;n Phenomenon in the Twenty-First Century. Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, pp. 323-358.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The estimated ranges for the final assemblage composition is based on the integration of RLM and petrographic data, which corrected for possible misidentifications during preliminary phases\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"aasc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences](http://link.springer.com/journal/12517)","snPcode":"12520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12520/3","title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Andes, Chavín, exchange and interaction, portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF), ceramic petrography","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559670/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559670/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCanchas Uckro is one of several small-scale settlements surrounding the ceremonial and urban center of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar (c. 1100\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;400 BCE). In this paper, we explore the relationship between these two sites through an archaeometric study of pottery production at Canchas Uckro (c. 1100\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;800 BCE). Specifically, we combine portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) and thin-section petrography to characterize technological style in a sample of 56 sherds. Our analyses identified 12 distinct petrographic groups, with most of the pottery (85% of the assemblage) reflecting two local technological styles. Among these local materials are several vessels featuring zone-hatching, which were previously thought to be imported from the eastern highlands or upper Amazon. A small percentage of ceramic fine wares representing both geochemical and technological outliers (2\u0026ndash;4%) point to probable inter-regional exchange, while a larger group of undecorated ceramics (~\u0026thinsp;10%) suggest more frequent intra-regional interactions. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that Canchas Uckro's ceramic production was independent of Chav\u0026iacute;n de Hu\u0026aacute;ntar, with its inhabitants participating in distinct networks of intra- and interregional exchange likely involving the movement of people, ceramics, technological practices, and ideas.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Chavín Heartland: An Archaeometric Study from Canchas Uckro (1100-800 BCE), Ancash, Perú","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-08 11:43:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559670/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-06-16T07:22:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-09T20:22:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-04T13:34:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"194671531577834034095238882102585437032","date":"2025-05-08T18:41:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"244561388462480420885540267132555239848","date":"2025-05-07T10:32:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-05T08:57:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-30T12:10:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-30T08:28:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","date":"2025-04-29T22:22:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"aasc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences](http://link.springer.com/journal/12517)","snPcode":"12520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12520/3","title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"82efe468-fb81-451f-bda4-79f8a3c4677b","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-24T16:04:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6559670","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02333-0","journal":{"identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences"},"publishedOn":"2025-11-22 15:58:40","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 22nd, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-08 11:43:26","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s12520-025-02333-0","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02333-0","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6559670","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6559670","identity":"rs-6559670","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}