A GROUP OF GRAVE TABLETS AND SHIRT FRAGMENTS FROM PACHACAMAC

Abstract

The American Museum of Natural History holds in its collection of archaeological looms a three-heddled backstrap loom (cat. no. 41.2/5602) from the central coast of Peru. It was described in detail by Milica D. Skinner (1975, pp. 67-68). A fabric, 26 5.6 cm., still on the loom, is in the technique that Bennett and Bird proposed calling (1960, p. 278), a technique well known in Middle Horizon tex tiles, especially those from the Nasca-Ica area. Technically, reinforced tapestry is a slit tapestry, generally on a cotton warp with camelid-fiber weft in various colors forming the pattern. An extra cotton weft, running from selvage to selvage and inserted every second, third, or fourth pick, stabilizes or rein forces the fabric (fig. 1), but is not noticeable because of the weft-faced structure of the weaving. The fabric on the above-mentioned loom is woven in a variation of this technique, as the colored wefts cover only the area of the pattern, leaving the back ground in a 1/1 cotton plain weave, while the camelid fiber wefts are woven over paired warps or three or more warp yarns (fig. 2). Two picks of camelid-fiber yarn alternate with one pick of the reinforcing cotton weft. Since one could properly classify the fabric as a simple brocade, this variation of reinforced tapestry could preferably be called tapestrylike brocading. When this technique is woven in direct continuation of slit tapestry, the warp yarns in the tapestry will be paired or tripled just like those in brocading. There is a small textile fragment from the second ary cemetery at the site of Garagay on the outskirts of Lima (fig. 3; Ravines and others, 1984) that is exactly like the one on the loom as regards width, quality, technique, and the number of warp yarns. Moreover, there are four other fragments in the same technique from Garagay (figs. 4, 5, and Ravines and others no. 3001/128), as well as several fragments from Pachacamac published by Uhle (1903, fig. 30, pi. 6), by Van Stan (1967, pp. 79-82, figs. 70b-c, 71a-e), and by Eisleb and Strelow (1980, Abb. 360-368, 386). Further more, two such pieces without provenance were also published by Eisleb and Strelow (1980, Abb. 359, 369). There are four further pieces from Pachacamac, all deriving from the Gretzer Collection: one in the Mu seum fur V?lkerkunde in Hanover (no. 13444) and three in the Etnografiska Museet in G?teborg. Finally, the Victoria and Albert Museum in London owns the lar gest of all the specimens (fig. 9) from a cemetery in the neighborhood of Lima. Most likely, the entire group represents a more or less organized home craft production woven on back strap looms in the valleys of Rimac and Lurin. The textiles may also come from workshops established at the temples as early as the Middle Horizon, but more evidence on this question is needed. I do not hesitate to date this group of textiles to Middle Horizon 2-3 on the basis of style, decorative elements, materials, and technique. Uhle (1903, p. 30) suggested that the tapestrylike brocaded textiles are exclusively from this period, which he named Epigone, but he may not have been entirely correct as there seem to be some of later date as well in the Gretzer Collection. There would be no reason for further discussion of these special weavings were it not for the five unpub lished pieces in Goteborg, Hanover, and London. They obviously can provide some information on burial practices, religion, and special fashions in costume.