LATE CHRONOLOGY IN HUALFÍN VALLEY (CATAMARCA, ARGENTINA):
A REVISION FROM 14C DATING

Federico Wynveldt1,2* • Bárbara Balesta2 •María Emilia Iucci1,2 •

Celeste Valencia2 •Gabriela Lorenzo2,3

1Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, Argentina.
2Laboratorio de Análisis Cerámico, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata,
Calle 64 N° 3, Lab. 18, La Plata 1900, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
3Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Argentina.

ABSTRACT. This article addresses chronological problems about archaeological sites traditionally associated with
the Belén culture from Hualfín Valley (Catamarca, Argentina), analyzing background research, radiocarbon dates
obtained by A Rex González before 1970, and 14C dates made since 1996. First, we critically review the chronological
sequence built by González for Belén sites, which include the Late period (AD 1100–1480) and Inca period (AD
1480–1536), subdivided into three phases. Methodological problems that could affect results of the first 14C dates are
discussed. Based on this review, we present new 14C dating considering extraction contexts, types of samples, calibra-
tion curve data used, the laboratory where each date was obtained, and their methods of measuring, characteristics of
sites of origin, and associated archaeological material. Finally, using calibrated ranges and Bayesian models, we sug-
gest groups of events that would correspond to different times in the history of late occupations in the valley.

KEYWORDS: Hualfín Valley, 14C dating, Belén phases, Late chronology.

INTRODUCTION

In the late 1940s, the American archaeologist Wendell Bennett (Bennett et al. 1948) published a
paper titled “North West Argentine Archaeology,” consisting of a mainly bibliographic
analysis of ceramic styles and “cultural” associations. The first goal of this research was to
establish the basis for a periodization. The classification of styles and the conformation of
archaeological contexts led Bennett et al. to define four periods for farmer and potter cultures:
Early, Middle, Late, and Inca. A few years later, in 1952, Alberto Rex González started his own
excavations in northwestern Argentina continuing in the same line purposed by Bennett and
colleagues. González considered it essential to establish relative and absolute chronologies,
since up to that time, interpretations were mainly based on ethnohistorical records. These did
not take into account the temporal depth in the development of local societies and intermixing
cultural materials, without an attempt to explain their differences. At first, González (1955)
used a relative chronology built from some overlapped tombs and typological correlations. This
chronology was based mainly on pottery classification taken from tombs of the Hualfín Valley
(Department of Belén, Catamarca, Argentina) (Figure 1) from the Muñiz Barreto collection
(Museum of La Plata), considering technical and stylistic features and in some cases settlement
patterns (González 1955).

A few years later, González, who was a pioneer in the application of the 14C dating method in
Argentina, compared his sequence with the absolute chronology data (González 1959, 1960a,
1960b, 1964). In the First National Congress of Argentinean Archaeology, in collaboration
with George Cowgill, he showed a compilation of the results of more than 20 years of work,
having already obtained many 14C dates and the possibility to process the data using computers
(González and Cowgill 1975). These results produced the master sequence for northwestern
Argentina based on archaeological materials from Hualfín Valley. The last three phases in the
sequence were called Belén I, Belén II, and Belén III, and correspond to the Late and Inca
periods. For these phases, González obtained nine 14C dates measured in different laboratories,
as listed in Table 1 (Olsson 1960; Stuiver et al. 1960; Olson and Broecker 1961; Hakansson

*Corresponding author. Email: wynveldtf@fcnym.unlp.edu.ar.

Radiocarbon, 2016, p. 1–17 DOI:10.1017/RDC.2016.114
© 2016 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

mailto:wynveldtf@fcnym.unlp.edu.ar
http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


1971; Valastro et al. 1972). González warned that some of these results contradicted the
proposed phases, so he decided to maintain the original sequence. Time proved him right
about their precautions, since subsequent studies confirmed the need for correction of
experimental and sampling errors. Beyond the cautions, he established precise chronological
limits for their phases, as follows: Belén I (AD 1100–1300), Belén II (AD 1300–1480), and
Belén III (AD 1480–1535).

Figure 1 Map of Hualfín Valley, showing late archaeological sites with 14C dates (empty circles) and Inca
installations (filled circles).

2 F Wynveldt et al.

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


In recent years, diverse research has been developed for late archaeological settlements and new
14C ages were obtained. Some of these dates were from the same sites González dated, and
others in known but previously undated settlements or in recently found locations (Figure 1)
(Wynveldt 2009; Balesta et al. 2011; Wynveldt and Iucci 2013). With the aim of contributing to
the problem of the chronology of Belén occupations in Hualfín Valley, this article critically
analyzes the “old” 14C measurements, and looks at probable causes that led to inconsistencies
between these dates and González’s Belén chronology. We also present the analysis of new 14C
data, evaluating the contexts where samples were extracted, the different types of samples, the
calibration curve, the lab where each date was obtained, and their methods of measuring and
characteristics of the sites. Finally, using calibrated ranges, the sum of probabilities, and
Bayesian models, we define the span represented by the dates and suggest groups of events that
would correspond to different times in the history of late occupations in the valley.

PREVIOUS RADIOCARBON DATING AND BELÉN PHASES

The Belén culture, defined by González (1955), was subdivided into three phases according
mainly to a series of architectural and ceramics features. Belén I was defined by the presence of
Belén pottery and communal large pit houses, arranged in groups of three or four. This type of
architecture, which lacked stone walls, was detected in a site called Corral de Ramas, which its
gave name to this phase (González 1955). Belén II showed changes in housing construction;
dwellings were built in stone walls, configured in more or less independent and scattered units,
as Gonzalez exemplified by means of the defensive site Cerrito Colorado (González 1955).

Later changes, but unclear if still in phase II or already in phase III, were more pronounced,
with significant transformations in cultural and social organization of Belén communities.
These would be seen, for example, in the complex defensive sites of El Molino and Pueblo Viejo
de El Eje, associated by González with phases II and III (González and Cowgill 1975), or in the
ability to undertake important collective tasks, as the cultivation terraces built in Asampay,
which González ascribed to the Inca period. El Shincal was proposed as the type site for this
phase; regarding the pottery, the presence of Inca influence on vessels was an indicator of the
Belén III phase (González 1955; González and Cowgill 1975).

In summary, Belén phases were characterized by having a progressive evolution of architectural
patterns, from communal pit houses to fortified and aggregated sites with Inca influences. After
González’ proposal, this culture was characterized as a chiefdom or señorío, in a geopolitical
model with its center in Hualfín Valley (Sempé 1999). According to Sempé, the Belén settlement
pattern was organized in a site hierarchy of aggregated villages, dispersed or open villages, and
villages with houses between terraces for farming. This pattern would reflect the complexity of
social organization. Sempé’s proposition had a different perspective from González’s ideas,
since she included not only settlement patterns but also political aspects. Moreover, in the
1990s, chronological problems still remained because almost no new 14C dates were obtained to
establish the chronology of these. In spite of these restrictions and differences regarding the
complex process outlined by González, Sempé kept Belén’s phases intact (Sempé 1999).

With reference toGonzález’s 14C dates (detailed in Table 1), we can observe that dates were obtained
before 1970/1971; therefore, some important methodological problems could affect these results,
mainly the absence of intercomparison between labs, the type of the samples, and their storage.

Interlaboratory comparisons became effective just since 1980 (Otlet et al. 1980) and only some
years later started to be significantly extended, including a relevant number of participants

Chronology and 14C in Hualfín Valley, Argentina 3

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for Belén phases (González and Cowgill 1975). *14C conventional date obtained by correction of the reference contemporary
standard used by Uppsala lab (Carbonari et al. 2011).

Calibración AD (SHCal13 calibration curve;
Hogg et al. 2013) Belén phases

Site and structure of
origin Code Extraction year Measurement year Sample type 14C date BP 1σ (68.2% prob.) 2σ (95.4% prob.) Phase AD Concordance

Cerrito Colorado,
House 3

Y-560 1952 1959 Charcoal 240± 80 1630–1711 (23.2%)
1719–1812 (31.4%)
1836–1949 (12.9%)

1506–1587 (11.4%)
1618–1949 (84%)

II 1300–1480 No

Cerrito Colorado,
House 8

L-476C 1952 1958/60 Charcoal 400± 100 1454–1529 (30%)
1531–1627 (38.2%)

1395–1688 (89.3%)
1728–1804 (6.1%)

II 1300–1480 No

Pueblo Viejo de El
Eje, Room 72

Lu-371 1969 1969/70 Charcoal 520± 50 1410–1452 (68.2%) 1326–1340 (1.5%)
1390–1499 (92.7%)

II-III 1300–1535 Yes

Cerrito Colorado,
House 3

U-154 1952 1959 Prosopis sp. and
Larrea sp.

580± 80 1318–1352 (20.5%)
1384–1447 (47.7%)

1283–1497 (94.4%)
1602–1606 (1%)

II 1300–1480 Yes

715± 115* 1232–1246 (4%)
1263–1401 (63.4%)

1053–1061 (0.4%)
1067–1078 (0.5%)
1147–1454 (94.4%)

Corral de Ramas,
Pit-house 1

Y-559 1952 1959 Prosopis nigra log 590± 50 1324–1343 (16.4%)
1389–1432 (51.8%)

1305–1362 (31.5%)
1377–1448 (63.9%)

I 1100–1300 No

Corral de Ramas,
Pit-house 1

U-153 1952 1959 Prosopis nigra log 795± 80 1223–1320 (50.5%)
1350–1386 (17.7%)

1151–1416 (95.4%) I 1100–1300 Yes

930± 115* 1031–1228 (68.2%) 898–928 (16.2%)
963–1311 (92.5%)

1359–1379 (10.5%)
El Molino, Room 68 Tx-989 1969 1969/71 Charcoal 930± 70 1046–1089 (20%)

1109–1120 (3.5%)
1130–1219 (44.7%)

1027–1266 (95.4%) II-III 1300–1535 No

Pueblo Viejo de El
Eje, Room 37

Tx-990 1969 1969/71 Charcoal 1040± 70 991–1053 (31.5)
1060–1068 (3.3%)
1078–1147 (33.4%)

895–935 (5.7%)
955–1201 (89.7%)

II-III 1300–1535 No

Pueblo Viejo de El
Eje, Room 72

Tx-991 1969 1969/71 Charcoal 1090± 60 894–936 (17%)
954–1043 (51.2%)

885–1072 (78.2%)
1076–1149 (16.2%)

II-III 1300–1535 No

http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core/term
s. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RD

C.2016.114
D

ow
nloaded from

 http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core. U
niversity of G

eorgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cam
bridge Core term

s of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


(Scott et al. 1990). Regarding the samples, archaeologists did not take into account the since
documented “old wood” effect; consequently, samples sometimes may have been old wood,
where the age of the wood does not correspond with the event to date. Another possible error
source in 14C dating is contamination of the samples, but there is no record for these samples
before or during the extraction or its storage, which in some cases was for many years. Finally,
the Uppsala dates used a different standard than HOxl (Olsson 1961). These dates were later
corrected by Carbonari et al. (2011) according the international consensus currently employed,
adding 135± 35 yr to the previously reported ages (see Table 1).

Considering these observations, we proceeded to analyze the “old” 14C dates. The most
discrepant dates compared to González’s scheme are the three oldest, obtained in the University
of Texas lab (USA), which correspond to El Molino (Puerta de Corral Quemado) and Pueblo
Viejo de El Eje, architecturally two of the most complex sites, and thus considered the latest in
the Belén culture chronology.

Although there are no details on the characteristics of the samples in the published descriptions
for these dates (Valastro et al. 1972), there was an internal coherence in the ages. However, as
González assumed at the time, they are very old for phases II and III, given the characteristics of
the dated sites (González and Cowgill 1975). Instead, the age obtained in Lund (lab code Lu) for
Pueblo Viejo de El Eje (520± 50 BP), according to González is in line with his previous
estimations and with historical information of Incas arrival, being a good mark for the
beginning of Belén III (Hakansson 1971: 355).

14C dates for Corral de Ramas were also problematic. Two samples were extracted from the
same algarrobo (Prosopis nigra) log, found in a post hole belonging to a pit house (Olsson 1960)
and two very different ages were obtained in different labs (U-153: 795 ± 80, corrected age:
930± 115 BP, and Y-559: 590 ± 50 BP). The fact that the samples have been taken from a log in
a post hole may involve a probable “old wood” effect. However, as stated by Carbonari et al.
(2011), the causes for the difference between the ages are not clear.

Regarding date Y-560 (240± 80 BP) from Casa 3 in the Cerrito Colorado site, which should
correspond to phase II, there are no details about how the sample was conformed. A comment
about this date considered that the age for U-154 (715± 115 BP) is more acceptable for Belén II
(Stuiver et al. 1960). L-476C (400± 100 BP), obtained for Casa 8 in Cerrito Colorado, is also
not concordant with a pre-Inca occupation.

NEWER RADIOCARBON DATA

New research on the different archaeological late settlements located in Figure 1 allowed
obtaining new archaeological and chronological information. Table 2 presents 22 14C dates
obtained since 1996 until today for late sites in the Hualfín Valley. Moreover, AC-364 is
included, a measurement made in 1984 in the INGEIS laboratory (Alberó and Angiolani 1985).
Although this date is coherent with the oldest of the new set, we decided to exclude it from the
analysis of the new dates because the laboratory that dated it did not participate in international
comparisons.

In the new dating measurements, charcoal, carbonized corn, camelid remains, and human
bones were selected. Both maize and faunal remains were associated with the occupation floor
of the excavated structures, and charcoal is usually associated with fireplaces, branches, or more
or less concentrated remains, also found on floor rooms (Valencia et al. 2010; Valencia and
Balesta 2013). In all these cases, we assume that the dated samples are reliable in relation to the

Chronology and 14C in Hualfín Valley, Argentina 5

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


Table 2 Radiocarbon dates obtained since 1986, from samples of new excavations at late sites in Hualfín Valley and from samples extracted by
González in the 1950s and 1960s.

14C conventional
Calibration AD (SHCal13)

Site and structure of origin Lab code Sample type date BP 1σ (68.2% prob.) 2σ (95.4% prob.) Published δ13C

Loma de los Antiguos,
Room 10

LP-872 Charcoal 220± 70 1648–1708 (20.4%)
1721–1811 (34.1%)
1837–1949 (13.6%)

1513–1546 (2.9%)
1623–1949 (92.5%)

–25± 2‰

Cerro Colorado, Room 35 LP-2760 Carbonized corn 290± 60 1509–1580 (26.6%)
1621–1672 (25.9%)
1743–1796 (15%)

1461–1700 (70.2%)
1722–1810 (23.6%)

–10± 2‰

Campo de Carrizal, Room 1 LP-1250 Charcoal 310± 60 1502–1593 (40.9%)
1613–1667 (25.9%)
1789–1791 (0.7%)

1459–1681 (81.4%)
1730–1802 (14%)

–24± 2‰

Loma de los Antiguos,
Room 31

LP-1644 Human bone 320± 50 1506–1587 (45.7%)
1618–1654 (22.5%)

1463–1672 (90.8%)
1744–1759 (2%)

–20± 2‰

Lajas Rojas 2 LP-1793 Charcoal 320± 60 1502–1594 (42.6%)
1613–1661 (25.6%)

1459–1675 (85.6%)
1737–1798 (9.8%)

–24± 2‰

Loma de los Antiguos,
Room 9

LP-937 Charcoal 330± 50 1505–1588 (48.8%)
1617–1649 (19.4%)

1460–1670 (94.1%)
1749–1752 (0.2%)

–24± 2‰

Loma de los Antiguos,
Room 3

LP-1039 Charcoal 350± 50 1502–1593 (54.2%)
1613–1638 (14%)

1460–1654 (95.4%) –24± 2‰

Loma de Ichanga, Room 9 LP-2667 Camelidae bone 360± 50 1500–1597 (56.3%)
1611–1632 (11.9%)

1460–1648 (95.4%) –20± 2‰

Loma de Ichanga, Room 6 LP-1832 Carbonized corn 420± 50 1449–1510 (42.6%)
1578–1621 (25.6%)

1443–1629 (95.4%) –10± 2‰

Cerrito Colorado, Room 8 LP- 2309 Charcoal 420± 70 1448–1512 (35.4%)
1548–1563 (5.5%)
1570–1623 (27.3%)

1427–1645 (95.4%) –24± 2‰

Cerrito Colorado, Room 3 LP-1810 Charcoal 420± 70 1448–1512 (35.4%)
1548–1563 (5.5%)
1570–1623 (27.3%)

1427–1645 (95.4%) –24± 2‰

6
F
W
ynveldt

et
al.

http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core/term
s. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RD

C.2016.114
D

ow
nloaded from

 http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core. U
niversity of G

eorgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cam
bridge Core term

s of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


Carrizal, NH2, Room 1, B2 LP-2330 Charcoal 430± 60 1443–1510 (43.3%)
1554–1556 (0.7%)
1576–1622 (24.2%)

1430–1633 (95.4%) –24± 2‰

Cerro Colorado, Room 2 AA105209 Charcoal 446± 25 1447–1486 (68.2%) 1440–1504 (84.9%)
1591–1615 (10.5%)

–23.6‰

Lajas Rojas 4 LP-2651 Carbonized corn 460± 50 1432–1500 (60%)
1597–1611 (8.2%)

1412–1515 (70.6%)
1540–1625 (24.8%)

–10± 2‰

Cerro Colorado, Room 35 AA100176 Carbonized corn 478± 38 1429–1465 (60%)
1467–1477 (8.2%)

1411–1502 (89.7%)
1593–1614 (5.7%)

–9.9‰

Cerro Colorado, Room 2 AA94600 Carbonized corn 493± 34 1428–1456 (68.2%) 1408–1488 (95.4%) –10.3‰
La Estancia, Room 13 AA105210 Carbonized corn 512± 35 1422–1451 (68.2%) 1400–1464 (95.4%) –10.1‰
Loma de Palo Blanco,
Room 34

AA105211 Carbonized
jarilla

523± 26 1421–1445 (68.2%) 1410–1452 (95.4%) –23.4‰

Loma de la Escuela Vieja,
Room 6

AA88362 Carbonized corn 521± 36 1419–1447 (68.2%) 1401–1458 (95.4%) –8.4‰

Cerro Colorado, Room 36 AA85880 Human bone 539± 43 1409–1443 (68.2%) 1327–1340 (1.9%)
1390–1460 (93.5%)

–10.1‰

El Molino, Room 110 AA88363 Human bone 585± 44 1328–1336 (6.8%)
1391–1433 (61.4%)

1315–1357 (23.5%)
1381–1448 (71.9%)

–9.5‰

Pueblo Viejo de El Eje,
Room 53

AA94601 Lama sp. bone 602± 42 1323–1345 (22.8%)
1388–1421 (45.4%)

1308–1361 (36.3%)
1378–1441 (59.1%)

–12.7‰

Cerro Colorado, Room 48 AC-364 Charcoal 760± 90 1223–1320 (50.5%)
1350–1386 (17.7%)

1151–1416 (95.4%) –18.5‰

C
hronology

and
14C

in
H
ualfín

V
alley,A

rgentina
7

http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core/term
s. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RD

C.2016.114
D

ow
nloaded from

 http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core. U
niversity of G

eorgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cam
bridge Core term

s of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


proximity of death of the dated organism and the event of occupation. On the other hand, three
of the new dates correspond to human burials found within rooms (LP-1644: 320 ± 50 BP;
AA-85880: 539± 43 BP and AA-88363: 585± 44 BP) and would be product of events that
occurred after the effective occupation of the structure (García Mancuso and Iucci 2008;
Wynveldt 2009; Balesta and García Mancuso 2010).

Three dates having unexpected modern ages were excluded from the table; two of them corre-
spond to rooms 11 (LP-976) and 29 (LP-1123) from Loma de los Antiguos de Asampay, and the
other (LP-1822) to room 48 from Cerro Colorado de La Ciénaga de Abajo. In the first two
cases, the samples corresponded to dispersed and undetermined charcoal, while the latter was
based on a sample of charcoal taken from the same context as AC-364.

Analyzing the whole set of ages obtained since 1996 it can be noted that, with the exception of
LP-2651 and AA-105209, the rest are grouped according to the laboratory where they were
made. The oldest correspond to the Arizona (AA) set, and the latest to the set of La Plata (LP).
An important point related with these differences has to do with dating techniques; Arizona
ages were made by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), with age uncertainties of ±25 and
44 yr, while the ages of La Plata were made by radiometric dating, with age uncertainties of
±50, 60 and 70 yr. These margins significantly extend the calibrated ranges for La Plata dates.
Further, calibrated ranges for ages between a little over 400 and 300 BP are more affected by the
irregularities of the calibration curve, where there are abrupt falls and spikes, which when added
to large errors, produce a major scattering in the probabilities.

In addition to these differences, dates obtained with AMS were corrected based on measuring
the δ13C value of each sample, while the ages obtained by the radiometric method employed
standard values (Table 3). The δ13C values for the plants remains do not vary significantly;
however, the calculated value for skeletal remains in AA-94601, AA-88363, and AA-85880,
differs significantly from the estimated value of –20± 2‰ used for corrections of LP-2667 and
LP-1644. These discrepancies were analyzed by Greco (2012) for 124 14C ages from north-
western Argentina, proving that the average calculated for δ13C in human and faunal bones
greatly deviate from the standard, with values of –12.49‰ and –15.6‰, respectively, which
would generate older ages.

INTERPRETATION OF NEW DATING MEASUREMENTS

The sum of the probabilities of the dates, obtained using OxCal v 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey and
Lee 2013), allows us to note that calibrated ranges are located most probably between the 15th
and 16th centuries (Figure 2), that is, times when there were important sociopolitical changes in
northwestern Argentina, such as the Inca and Spanish conquests. Moreover, the sum of modeled
data narrows the results almost to the 15th century, with a greater probability density in the first
decades. Today, there is agreement on the fact that the Late or Regional Developments period
extends from AD 1000 until the arrival of the Incas (Núñez Regueiro 1974). Regarding the latter,
although classic versions have argued that the conquest of this region and Chile was undertaken
by Topa Inca Yupanqui in AD 1470–1480, a lot of new archaeological information in general—
and chronologically in particular—indicates that it may have occurred decades earlier (Williams
and D’Altroy 1998; Schiappacasse 1999; Ogburn 2012). Greco (2012) analyzed a set of 33 dating
associated to Inca contexts from northwestern Argentina, using Bayesian models to define the
temporal limits of the conquest. Results indicate that at least their influences had begun towards
the first half of the 15th century. Considering this, we establish the Inca conquest boundary in the
interval between AD 1400 to 1450; therefore, the dates that present probabilities within that time

8 F Wynveldt et al.

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


are considered Pre-Inca–Inca. The Inca period ends with the arrival of Diego deAlmagro in 1536,
when the Hispanic–Indigenous period begins, characterized by Spaniard attempts to subdue the
natives, who resisted until the mid-17th century (1640–1670), when the region was incorporated
to the Spanish crown, and beginning of the Colonial period.

Table 3 δ13C values for dating obtained since 1986 (in italics, standard values; in bold, mea-
sured values).

Site and structure of origin Lab code 14C corrected age BP Sample δ13C

Loma de los Antiguos, Recinto 10 LP-872 220±70 Charcoal –25± 2‰
Cerro Colorado, Room 35 LP-2760 290±60 Carbonized corn –10± 2‰
Campo de Carrizal, Room 1 LP-1250 310±60 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Loma de los Antiguos, Room 31 LP-1644 320±50 Human bone –20± 2‰
Lajas Rojas 2 LP-1793 320±60 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Loma de los Antiguos, Room 9 LP-937 330±50 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Loma de los Antiguos, Room 3 LP-1039 350±50 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Loma de Ichanga, Room 9 LP-2667 360±50 Camelidae bone –20± 2‰
Loma de Ichanga, Room 6 LP-1832 420±50 Carbonized corn –10± 2‰
Cerrito Colorado, Room 8 LP- 2309 420±70 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Cerrito Colorado, Room 3 LP-1810 420±70 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Campo de Carrizal, NH2, Room 1, B2 LP-2330 430±60 Charcoal –24± 2‰
Cerro Colorado, Room 2 AA-105209 446±25 Charcoal –23.6‰
Lajas Rojas 4 LP-2651 460±50 Carbonized corn –10± 2‰
Cerro Colorado, Room 35 AA-100176 478±38 Carbonized corn –9.9‰
Cerro Colorado, Room 2 AA-94600 493±34 Carbonized corn –10.3‰
La Estancia, Room 13 AA-105210 512±35 Carbonized corn –10.1‰
Loma de la Escuela Vieja, Room 6 AA-88362 521±36 Carbonized corn –8.4‰
Loma de Palo Blanco, Room 34 AA-105211 523±26 Jarilla charcoal –23.4‰
Cerro Colorado, Room 36 AA-85880 539±43 Human bone –10.1‰
El Molino, Room 110 AA-88363 585±44 Human bone –9.5‰
Pueblo Viejo de El Eje, Room 53 AA-94601 602±42 Lama sp. bone –12.7‰
Cerro Colorado, Room 48 AC-364 760±90 Charcoal –18.5‰

Figure 2 Above: summed probabilities for 14C dates since 1996 until
present for late sites in Hualfín Valley. Below: the same data modeled
by OxCal v 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013). In different colors the
proposed periods from late to modern times: P-I (Pre-Inca–Inca); Hip–
Ind. (Hispanic indigenous); H-C (Hispanic indigenous–Colonial); Col.
(Colonial).

Chronology and 14C in Hualfín Valley, Argentina 9

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


Regarding the dated contexts, excavations have very little accumulation of materials, usually
covered by collapsed roofs over a single occupation floor (Valencia and Balesta 2013). It is
very likely that frequent cleanings of these floors removed the remains of previous events;
thus, the dated events were closely to definitive abandonment of the structures. Similarly,
dated human burials correspond surely to events produced after the abandonment of the rooms.
This would explain the absence of dates that represent times closer to the beginning of
Late period (AD 1000–1300). In this sense, we assume that every village should have a deeper
history in time.

Given these conditions, we must define the criteria for the interpretation of calibrated ranges. In
recent years, the Bayesian statistics applied to chronology has produced significant results as a
tool for interpreting sets of 14C dates (Bayliss 2015). In our case, its application is limited to
modeling probabilities of the total set of dating, because of the lack of archaeological markers
that may be used for determining phases or chronological limits.

Added to the inability to measure precisely the time of the Inca conquest is the lack of Inca
elements (or features that indicate an Inca influence) associated with dated events that allow us
to estimate a before and after. The same applies to Spanish conquest: although we accept
AD 1536 as the beginning of Hispanic–Indigenous period, we have not observed Hispanic
elements that allow us to use this limit as a temporary marker in the Hualfín Valley.

Figure 3 shows the distributions of dates obtained since 1996, plotted with OxCal v 4.2.4
(Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013). The analysis of the probabilities for calibrated ranges first
allows us to recognize a group of eight dates located between the late 14th century and the
first half of the 15th century, that is, the Pre-Inca–Inca period. These dates are of great
interest considering that, although they are very recent in relation to the beginning of
Late period as it was traditionally defined (from AD 1000/1100), they are the oldest obtained
for the analyzed sites.

The following six dates show some probability of representing events in the second half of the
15th century and the first decades of the 16th century, in the Inca period, although there is also
less probability to later periods. Inca presence in the valley is clear if we take into account
installations like Hualfín Inca, Quillay, El Shincal (Raffino 2004; Lynch 2012; Spina and
Giovannetti 2014), as well as surface remains or tombs in which local materials are mixed with
Inca provincial or objects showing Inca features (Wynveldt 2009; Moralejo et al. 2010).
However, until now, very little material evidence of Inca influence has been found in the
analyzed sites.

A third group of seven dates has calibrated ranges with more probabilities for the 16th century
and some probability for the 17th century, represented by occupations that span the last years
of the Inca Empire to early years of Spanish presence in northwestern Argentina, the Hispanic–
Indigenous period. With respect to these dates, no European elements or objects or repre-
sentations depicting Hispanic influence on local groups have been observed. LP-2667 (Loma de
Ichanga, Room 9) and LP-2760 (Cerro Colorado, Room 35) would be placed in this group,
although these cases have characteristics that must be specially analyzed. LP-2667 was obtained
from a camelid bone in Room 9 of Loma de Ichanga, placed a few meters from Room 6, where
LP-1832 was obtained, which is more likely to be from the second half of 15th century. Both
dates are statistically indistinguishable at 95%. Considering the aforementioned observations in
relation to the use of measured or standardized values of δ13C by laboratories to correct 14C
ages, we think that both dated events would be closer to the second half of 15th century.

10 F Wynveldt et al.

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


The case of date LP-2760 from Room 35 of Cerro Colorado is more complex to interpret
because it was obtained in the same context as the corncobs of AA100176, and both are
statistically different. Since the rest of the dates obtained for the site are consistent with
AA100176, we decided to reject LP-2760 as no new dates on different materials from the same
room were obtained. Finally, the date from Room 10 of Loma de los Antiguos de Asampay

Figure 3 Calibrated 14C graphics elaborated with OxCal v 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey and Lee
2013) and SHCal13 (Hogg et al. 2013), including 14C dates for late sites in Hualfín Valley,
obtained since 1996 until present.

Chronology and 14C in Hualfín Valley, Argentina 11

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


(LP-872) has a greater chance to originate in the 18th century (Colonial period), although it also
shows a significant percentage to be assigned to the 17th century.

In summary, calibrated data show ranges with probabilities covering four moments in
the regional sociocultural development—Late Pre-Inca, Inca, Hispanic–Indigenous, and
Colonial—although there is little or no evidence in the architecture or archaeological contexts
to distinguish them. This uncertainty led us to seek alternatives to define more precisely ranges
and generate hypothesis about dating events and the occupation of the sites (Table 4). With
this purpose, we proceeded to generate different Bayesian models using OxCal v 4.2.4 to test in
the future with more archaeological and chronological information. The most modern date
(LP-872) and the mentioned LP-2667 (Loma de Ichanga, Room 9) and LP-2760 (Cerro
Colorado, Room 35) were excluded.

First, one model (M0) was obtained considering a hypothetical single phase without pre-
configured boundaries (Figure 4), and is acceptable (>60%) for both concordance indexes
(Aoverall = 85.1 and Amodel = 86.6). The lower limits of the distributions in this model are
similar to those from calibrated ranges, adjusting dates to the early 15th century. However, as
noted in the modeled sum of probabilities, the upper limits are reduced significantly, reaching
most likely the mid-16th century, that is, early the Hispanic–Indigenous period. This result led
us to consider different alternatives for phases with preset boundaries.

Generated models for a single phase, both for Pre-Inca–Inca (AD 1400–1450) and a “pure”
Inca phase (AD 1450–1536), were rejected. Also, a two-phase model including a Pre-Inca phase
with all sites and excluding dates of Loma de los Antiguos, the most modern date for Campo de
Carrizal and Lajas Rojas 2, was rejected (Amodel = 53.3 and Aoverall = 53.5). A new similar test
(M1) was acceptable when incorporating in the Inca phase the date of Loma de Ichanga Room
6 (LP-1832) (Amodel = 75.5 and Aoverall = 75.5) (Figure 5). This model is consistent with the
established idea that the sites of Asampay—the pukara Loma de los Antiguos and the farming
site Campo de Carrizal—should have been occupied during pre-Inca, but also Inca times
(González 1955; Sempé 1999; Wynveldt 2009), although materials associated with the
Tawantinsuyu are absent. The context of dwelling 6 of Loma de Ichanga was interpreted as an
event of ritual abandonment with an intentional fire, perhaps linked to the Inca conquest
(Balesta and Wynveldt 2010).

Another acceptable model (M2, Amodel = 64.6 and Aoverall = 64.3) was based on the hypothesis
that many of the sites dated to pre-Inca–Inca times may have been abandoned from Inca
conquest, and the cases of Loma de los Antiguos, Campo de Carrizal, and Lajas Rojas 2 could
be Hispanic–Indigenous occupations. A new model was proposed (M3) including very late
dates, fromLoma de Ichanga, Cerrito Colorado, and Campo de Carrizal, in the Inca phase, and
it was also acceptable (Amodel = 128.4; Aoverall = 128.4).

While M1, M2, and M3 are statistically valid and archaeologically plausible, considering the
available materiality and the characteristics of excavated contexts, we propose that M1 is the
most acceptable today, since no European influences were found yet and Inca presence and
influence in the valley is a fact. In this sense, we can argue that the 13 oldest 14C ages, which
include a variety of sites—defensive and nondefensive villages with isolated or aggregated
patterns, isolated dwellings in the countryside, and scattered dwellings among farming fields—
may correspond to the last moments of the autonomous development of local groups and the
start of Inca influence, while the rest of the dates could be associated with times of Inca presence
in the valley, which had varying degrees of impact on different locations.

12 F Wynveldt et al.

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


Table 4 Radiocarbon dates considering site, architecture, hypothetical period, period for calibrated data with its greatest probability, and Bayesian models
with the period (phase) assigned to each site: PI (pre-Inca), I (Inca), HI (Hispanic–Indigenous).

Hypothetical periods based on
archaeological record Calibrated data

Site Lab code and 14C age BP Architectural pattern For site For dated context Period
Prob. in the
period (%) M0 M1 M2 M3

Pueblo Viejo de El Eje AA-94601 (602± 42) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 59.1 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
El Molino AA-88363 (585± 44) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca & Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 71.9 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
Loma de la Escuela Vieja AA-88362 (521± 36) Isolated pattern-protected Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 95.4 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
Palo Blanco AA-105211 (523± 26) Isolated pattern-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 95.4 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
La Estancia AA-105210 (512± 35) Isolated pattern Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 95.4 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
Cerro Colorado AA-85880 (539± 43) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 93.5 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I

AA-94600 (493± 34) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 95.4 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
AA-100176 (478± 38) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 89.7 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
AA-105209 (446± 25) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 84.9 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I

Lajas Rojas 4 LP-2651 (460±50) Isolated room Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Pre-Inca–Inca 70.6 PI-I PI-I PI-I PI-I
Cerrito Colorado LP-2309 (420±70) Isolated pattern-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Inca 35.4 Inca PI-I PI-I Inca

LP-1810 (420±70) Isolated pattern-defensive Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Inca 35.4 Inca PI-I PI-I Inca
Campo de Carrizal LP-2330 (430±60) Isolated pattern-farming site Pre-Inca & Inca Pre-Inca or Inca Inca 43.3 Inca PI-I PI-I Inca
Loma de Ichanga LP-1832 (420±50) Isolated pattern-protected Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Inca 42.6 Inca Inca PI-I Inca
Loma de los Antiguos LP-1039 (350±50) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca & Inca Pre-Inca or Inca Inca HI 95.4 Inca HI Inca HI HI

LP-937 (330± 50) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca or Inca Inca HI 94.1 Inca HI Inca HI HI
LP-1644 (320±50) Aggregated-defensive Pre-Inca or Inca Inca HI 90.8 Inca HI Inca HI HI

Lajas Rojas 2 LP-1793 (320±60) Isolated room Pre-Inca Pre-Inca Inca HI 85.6 Inca HI Inca HI HI
Campo de Carrizal LP-1250 (310±60) Isolated pattern-farming site Pre-Inca & Inca Pre-Inca or Inca Inca HI 81.4 Inca HI Inca HI HI

http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core/term
s. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RD

C.2016.114
D

ow
nloaded from

 http:/w
w

w
.cam

bridge.org/core. U
niversity of G

eorgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cam
bridge Core term

s of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


CONCLUSIONS

The pioneer work made by A Rex González in Hualfín Valley constituted a fundamental
contribution to the knowledge of chronology of ancient social groups of northwestern
Argentina. His relative sequence of three Belén phases, based on a supposed process of
increasing complexity of this “culture,” was the first attempt to explain the development of the
late groups in Hualfín Valley. While Gonzalez could not corroborate this sequence with 14C
dates, he assumed that this problem would be solved with the progress in implementing the 14C
method. However, neither the process was reflected in the dating nor was confirmed with the

Figure 4 14C dates for Hualfín Valley late sites from 1996 until present, modeled using OxCal
v 4.2.4, considering a single phase without preset boundaries.

14 F Wynveldt et al.

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


new research done in many of the same sites in Hualfín Valley. In this sense, we saw the
coexistence between late sites with very different patterns, and maybe, functions: isolated
rooms, villages with a scattered or conglomerate pattern, settled on protected hills or defended
by walls, and scattered rooms between farming terraces. Moreover, the only residential sites
where objects linked to the Inca conquest were found (it is worth clarifying that only on surface
collections) are those with older dates (El Molino and Loma de la Escuela Vieja, in Puerta de
Corral Quemado), while sites with more recent occupations only have materials traditionally
associated with local Late period, even in the sites with dates most likely for Hispanic times.

Figure 5 Model 1 considering a pre-Inca–Inca and an Inca phase with preset boundaries
(AD 1400–1450–1536), generated with OxCal v 4.2.4. 14C dates correspond to Hualfín Valley
late sites from 1996 until present.

Chronology and 14C in Hualfín Valley, Argentina 15

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


With respect to pre-Inca times, we emphasized the absence of dating representing initial moments
of Belén culture, Gonzalez´s phase I. InWynveldt and Flores (2014), we compared late 14C dating
of the valley with dates from southern puna of Catamarca, a neighboring region with different
resources and with strong cultural ties to Hualfín Valley, evidenced by the presence of Belén
pottery. While different authors have postulated the puna sociopolitical dependence on a political
Belén core in the valley (Raffino and Cigliano 1973; Sempé 1999: Olivera et al. 2003–2005),
dating of the region associated with Belén pottery is much older than dates analyzed here. The
absence of early dating from the valley, together with the earliest evidence in the puna, poses a
quite interesting scenario about relationships between these regions and the origin of Belén.

Beyond these problems, according to the Bayesian models we analyzed here and the char-
acteristics of dated archaeological contexts, we hold that the oldest dates from the new series for
Hualfín Valley, with probabilities for the first half of 15th century, represent the last moments of
a local development of unknown origins, and may correspond to events closer to the aban-
donment of structures, sections of the sites, or perhaps whole villages, for reasons related to Inca
conquest. Moreover, following one of the tested Bayesian models, the rest of the dates could be
linked to contexts of abandonment that represent movements of local groups during Inca
domination in the region. Finally, for 14C dates most likely in 16th century onwards, it may be
suggested that some of these occupations are associated with years after Inca presence, at times
when local groups resisted Spanish conquest, in spite of the fact that archaeological evidences
for this events have not been discovered yet.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Radiocarbon dates made since 1996 were financed by the following institutions fromArgentina:
Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica,
and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas.

REFERENCES

Alberó MC, Angialoni FE. 1985. INGEIS radio-
carbon laboratory dates II. Radiocarbon
27(2B):314–37.

Balesta B, García Mancuso R. 2010. Entierros infan-
tiles en una habitación del Cerro Colorado de La
Ciénaga de Abajo. In: Balesta B, Zagorodny N,
editors. Aldeas protegidas, conflicto y abandono.
Investigaciones arqueológicas en La Ciénaga
(Catamarca, Argentina). La Plata: Al Margen.
p 241–72.

Balesta B, Wynveldt F. 2010. La Loma de Ichanga:
visibilidad, defensibilidad y abandono en el Valle
de Hualfín. Revista Española de Antropología
Americana 40(1):53–71.

Balesta B, Zagorodny N, Wynveldt F. 2011. La con-
figuración del paisaje Belén (valle de Hualfín,
Catamarca). Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina
de Antropología 36:149–75.

Bayliss A. 2015. Quality in Bayesian chronological
models in archaeology. World Archaeology
47(4):677–700.

Bennett WC, Bleir EF, Sommer FH. 1948. Northwest
Argentine Archaeology. Yale University Publi-
cations in Anthropology 38. New Haven: Yale
University Press. 42 p.

Bronk Ramsey C, Lee S. 2013. Recent and planned
developments of the program OxCal. Radio-
carbon 55(2–3):720–30.

Carbonari J, Baldini MI, Huarte R, Sempé MC. 2011.
Seis décadas de dataciones radiocarbónicas de las
culturas agroalfareras en el valle de Hualfín,
Catamarca, Argentina. In: Silvera de Buenader E,
Martínez de Montiel SE, editors. El hombre,
el medio y sus relaciones, Compilation 1, Volume 1,
N°1. San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca:
Universidad Nacional de Catamarca. p 79–102.

García Mancuso R, Iucci ME. 2008. Entierro infantil en
un contexto doméstico (ElMolino, Puerta deCorrral
Quemado, Catamarca). Resúmenes del X Congreso
de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología
Biológica [CD-ROM]. La Plata: Asociación
Latinoamericana de Antropología Biológica.

González AR. 1955. Contextos culturales y crono-
logía relativa en el área central del N. O. argentino
(nota preliminar). Anales de Arqueología y
Etnología 11:7–32.

González AR. 1959. Nuevas fechas de la cronología
arqueológica Argentina obtenidas por el método
de radiocarbón (II). Ciencia e Investigación
5(6):184–90.

16 F Wynveldt et al.

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core


González AR. 1960a. Nuevas fechas de la cronología
arqueológica Argentina, obtenidas por el método
del radiocarbono (III). Ciencia e Investigación
16(4):142–5.

González AR. 1960b. Nuevas fechas de la cronología
arqueológica argentina, obtenidas por el método
del radiocarbono (IV). Resumen y perspectivas.
Revista del Instituto de Antropología 1:303–31.

González AR. 1964. Nuevas fechas de la cronología
arqueológica argentina, obtenidas por el método
del radiocarbono (V). Revista del Instituto de
Antropología 2–3:289–97.

González AR, Cowgill GL. 1975. Cronología
arqueológica del Valle de Hualfín, Pcia. de Cata-
marca, Argentina. Obtenida mediante el uso de
computadoras. Actas del Primer Congreso de
Arqueología Argentina. Rosario.

Greco C. 2012. Integración de datos arqueológicos y
geofísicos para la construcción de una cronología
absoluta de Yocavil y alrededores [PhD thesis].
Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras,
Universidad de Buenos Aires. 497 p.

Hakansson S. 1971. University of Lund radiocarbon
dates IV. Radiocarbon 13(2):340–57.

Hogg A, Hua Q, Blackwell P, Niu M, Buck C,
Guilderson T, Heaton T, Palmer J, Reimer P,
Reimer R, Turney C, Zimmerman S. 2013.
SHCal13 Southern Hemisphere calibration,
0–50,000 years cal BP.Radiocarbon 55(4):1889–903.

Lynch J. 2012. Una aproximación cronológica al
centro administrativo Hualfín Inka, Catamarca,
Argentina. Revista Española de Antropología
Americana 42(2):321–37.

Moralejo RA, Lynch J, Couso MG, Raffino RA.
2010. El ajuar como indicador de la presencia
Inka en el Cementerio Aguada Orilla Norte
(Provincia de Catamarca). Intersecciones en
Antropología 11:309–13.

Núñez Regueiro VA. 1974. Conceptos instrumentales
y marco teórico en relación al análisis del desar-
rollo cultural del Noroeste Argentino. Revista del
Instituto de Antropología 5:169–90.

Ogburn DE. 2012. Reconceiving the chronology
of Inca imperial expansion. Radiocarbon 54(2):
219–37.

Olivera D, Vigliani S, Elías A, Grana L,
Tchilinguirian P. 2003–2005. La ocupación
Tardío-Inka en la punameridional: el sitio Campo
Cortaderas. Cuadernos del INAPL 20:257–77.

Olson EA, Broecker WS. 1961. Lamont natural
radiocarbon measurements VII. Radiocarbon
3:141–75.

Olsson I. 1960. Uppsala natural radiocarbon
measurements II. American Journal of Science
Radiocarbon Supplement 2:112–28.

Otlet RL, Walker AJ, Hewson AD, Burleigh R. 1980.
14C interlaboratory comparison in the UK:
experiment design, preparation and preliminary
results. Radiocarbon 22(3):936–46.

Raffino RA. 2004. El Shincal de Quimivil. San
Fernando del Valle de Catamarca: Sarquis. 272 p.

Raffino RA, Cigliano M. 1973. La Alumbrera:
Antofagasta de la Sierra. Un modelo de ecología
cultural prehispánica. Relaciones de la Sociedad
Argentina de Antropología 7:241–58.

Schiappacasse V. 1999. Cronología del Estado Inca.
Estudios Atacameños 18:133–40.

Scott EM, Aitchison T, Harkness D, Cook G,
Baxter M. 1990. An overview of all three stages of
the International Radiocarbon Intercomparison.
Radiocarbon 32(3):309–19.

Sempé MC. 1999. La cultura Belén. Actas del XII
Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina,
tomo II. La Plata. p 250–8.

Spina J, Giovannetti MA. 2014. Metalurgia pre-
hispánica en el valle de Hualfín. Nuevos datos
sobre Quillay. Intersecciones en Antropología
15:473–7.

Stuiver M, Deevey ES, Gralenski LJ. 1960. Yale
natural radiocarbon measurements V. American
Journal of Science Radiocarbon Supplement 2:
49–61.

Valastro S, Davis EM, Varela AG. 1972. University of
Texas at Austin, radiocarbon dates IX. Radio-
carbon 14(2):461–85.

Valencia MC, Balesta B. 2013. ¿Abandono planifi-
cado? Restos forestales carbonizados en sitios
arqueológicos de La Ciénaga (Catamarca,
Argentina). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études
Andines 42(2):145–72.

Valencia MC, Fernández M, Barberis C. 2010.
Evidencias de incendios en el registro arqueo-
lógico de la localidad de La Ciénaga. In: Balesta B,
Zagorodny N, editors. Aldeas protegidas,
conflicto y abandono. Investigaciones arqueo-
lógicas en La Ciénaga (Catamarca, Argentina). La
Plata: Al Margen. p 161–99.

Williams V, D’Altroy T. 1998. Al sur del Tawantin-
suyu: un dominio selectivamente intensivo.
Tawantinsuyu 5:170–8.

Wynveldt F. 2009. La Loma de los Antiguos de
Azampay. Un sitio defensivo del Valle de Hualfín
(Catamarca, Argentina). Buenos Aires: Sociedad
Argentina de Antropología. 366 p.

Wynveldt F, Flores M. 2014. La obsidiana en el
paisaje Tardío del Valle deHualfín (Depto. de Belén,
Prov. de Catamarca). Arqueología 20:193–216.

Wynveldt F, Iucci ME. 2013. La cronología Belén en
el norte del Valle de Hualfín: viejos problemas,
nuevas perspectivas. Arqueología 19(1):187–95.

Chronology and 14C in Hualfín Valley, Argentina 17

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 03 Jan 2017 at 13:59:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.114
http:/www.cambridge.org/core

	Late Chronology in Hualfín Valley (Catamarca, Argentina): A Revision from 14c Dating
	INTRODUCTION
	Figure 1Map of Hualfín Valley, showing late archaeological sites with 14C dates (empty circles) and Inca installations (filled circles).
	PREVIOUS RADIOCARBON DATING AND BELÉN PHASES
	Table 1Radiocarbon dates for Belén phases (González and Cowgill 1975).
	NEWER RADIOCARBON DATA
	Table 2Radiocarbon dates obtained since 1986, from samples of new excavations at late sites in Hualfín Valley and from samples extracted by González in the 1950s and�1960s.
	INTERPRETATION OF NEW DATING MEASUREMENTS
	Table 3δ13C values for dating obtained since 1986 (in italics, standard values; in bold, measured values).
	Figure 2Above: summed probabilities for 14C dates since 1996 until present for late sites in Hualfín Valley.
	Figure 3Calibrated 14C graphics elaborated with OxCal v 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013) and SHCal13 (Hogg et�al.
	Table 4Radiocarbon dates considering site, architecture, hypothetical period, period for calibrated data with its greatest probability, and Bayesian models with the period (phase) assigned to each site: PI (pre-Inca), I (Inca), HI (Hispanic–Indigen
	CONCLUSIONS
	Figure 414C dates for Hualfín Valley late sites from 1996 until present, modeled using OxCal v 4.2.4, considering a single phase without preset boundaries.
	Figure 5Model 1 considering a pre-Inca–Inca and an Inca phase with preset boundaries (AD 1400–1450–1536), generated with OxCal v 4.2.4.
	Acknowledgments
	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
	References