Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:21:10.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Richard T. Smith

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory Knapp*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Abstract

The distinction between embanked and sunken fields is not merely semantic. There is good evidence for frequent flooding at Chilca. Archaeostratigraphy provides neither privileged nor unambiguous evidence for original field function. The full range of environmental, archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic evidence is more consistent with the embanked-field theory than with Smith’s alternative.

Type
Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Córdova y Urrutia, José|María 1877 Noticias historicas geográficas y estadísticas de las provincias de Chancay, Cañete, Huarochirí, Canta, lea y Yauyos. Documentos literarios del Perú 11:151257. Lima.Google Scholar
Denevan, William M. 1980 Latin America. In World systems of traditional resource management, edited by Klee, Gary A., pp. 217244. Halsted Press, New York.Google Scholar
Engel, Frédéric 1966 Geografía humana prehistórica y agricultura precolombina de la quebrada de Chilca. UniversidadAgraria, Lima.Google Scholar
Knapp, Gregory 1982 Prehistoric flood management on the Peruvian coast: reinterpreting the “sunken fields” of Chilca. American Antiquity 47:144154.Google Scholar
Raimondi, Antonio 1945 Notas de viaje para su obra “El Perú” (Vol. 3). Torres Aguirre, Lima.Google Scholar