From the Aztecs to the Americans

Posted on by
Reply

Open up Google and type in “Doña Sebastiana” and peruse through the images that you get. It’s probably something like this:

Doña Sebastiana

Professor Carlo Severi’s lecture on the connection between art and social memory focused heavily on the relationship between christianity in Mexico and the depiction of Doña Sebastiana. The art and portrayal of Doña Sebastiana is fascinating as it brings about the question of the importance of death in Mexican Christianity. Christianity has traditionally focused on life and rebirth, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Looking at Doña Sebastiana (or Santa Muerte as she is referred to sometimes) gives a completely different impression.

Anthropologically, this is an engrossing topic. To the Aztecs and the Mayans that occupied modern-day Mexico, death was a large part of religion and culture. Human sacrifices were not uncommon and both peoples prayed to their respective gods of death. The Aztecs’ death god was named Mictlantecuhtli, who ruled over all of the dead and was one of the more prominent gods in Aztec religion. The Maya believed in multiple death gods, all of which fell into two basic types: Hunhau and Uacmitun Ahau.

Mictlantecuhtli looked like this:

Aztec god of death, Mictlantecuhtli

Seems somewhat familiar? He looks almost like Doña Sebastiana! What is so amazing about this is that this is evidence of cross-cultural traditions with respect to the Christian Mexicans and the Aztecs. This reveals how their ancestors, the Aztecs, actually influenced the Mexicans of today. When Christianity infiltrated Mexico and South America in the 17th century, the Aztec and Maya people were supposedly wiped out. With them, most of their traditions were thought to have disintegrated too.

Yet here is proof that the Aztecs did in fact leave their mark on society today. This is where the importance can be placed on social memory – the cultural emphasis placed on death transcended through every following generation and managed to influence the portrayal of Christianity in Mexico.

Now, the cult of Santa Muerte has reached the United States. Through migration and immigration, the belief in Doña Sebastiana has managed to spread across nations, past the United States/Mexican border and into America. Its influence has also extended to non-Latinos, specifically in Louisiana and Northern California.

Just like history has shown us, cultures and traditions carry on through time and location. The social memory of Doña Sebastiana, passed down for generations is a prime example of this, and Professor Severi’s talk on this was stimulating, captivating, and thought provoking.

 

References:

Picture 1: http://www.thelope.com/images/08-10-10-113.jpg

Picture 2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/MictlantecuhtliTemploMayor_B.jpg

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22462181

Santa Muerta Webpage: http://lamericalatina.net/la-santa-muerte/

Delgado Arts: http://delgadoarts.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/dona-sebastiana-lady-sebastian/

Lazy Friday Afternoon, Let’s do….Lab Work?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m just going to come straight out with the most exciting, best learned lesson from lab work. I’m a bone expert and can tell the difference between mammal, bird and fish bone to a T. Impressive I know. Besides this mind blowing fact that has changed my view of myself, I was pleasantly surprised to find out two things. First, that archaeology has a lot of work (aka lab work) to do once done with the grueling excavation process most people think to be the only part of archaeology, second that it can actually be quite entertaining and fun.

An array of bones

An array of bones

 

One could almost deduce that excavation is the easy part. After that, one has to take everything found, and separate it into bags according to what it is. If thats not a lot of work, you have to label everything exactly where it came from. And although we did not need to do this during our two hour lab experience, one also has to clean the artifacts and perve them. A challenging aspect of our lab work, specifically, was having to relabel and separate bags already labeled, we had to fix inconsistencies for artifacts, and didn’t always have the information right or in some cases at all. Therefore, having to label them as surface finds, in a case of a medicine bottle that came with no information. This emphasized the large importance of small details not being overlooked and following protocol to clearly and correctly label everything that needs labeling.

lab_combo

The grandeur of lab work

I think its pretty clear that there are many stereotypes about archeology, how it is basically Indiana Jones, right? Even if someone has overcome that stereotype, many people still don’t picture archeologist in a lab, sitting on turning chairs, in nice work clothes, listening to music, with bright pink painted nails, sorting through everything found at a site. But it is a large part of archaeology, and this lab experience showed exactly this. That without this last step in the lab, excavation would be worthless.


My statement earlier might be misguided though. Sitting in air conditioning singing along, or I was singing my heart out, while my classmates gave me a quizzical glances, to songs I love, learning about history and sorting through artifacts that were actually really cool and intriguing was something I enjoyed on a Friday afternoon.  More importantly though, something very necessary and important to the process of performing an archaeological excavation on a site. People tend to not look past whats put in front of their eyes. In this case, seeing artifacts go straight from digging to a museum. They miss one of the most important steps, and without this step, archaeology would not let us look back in the past, to help the better the future.

Sources:

http://research.history.org/archaeological_research/mhpage/AAFoodways.htm

http://soa.illinoisstate.edu/graduate/archeology/

http://archaeology.about.com/od/archaeologic7/ss/Excavating-at-Blue-Creek_10.htm

 

 

Ugh, Lab Work. So Boring…Right?

Posted on by
1
What people think archaeologists always do...

Archaeological field work…

When most people think of archaeology, they probably picture someone digging in a jungle searching for hidden treasures, or perhaps uncovering the tomb of some great pharaoh in Egypt. Sitting in a well-lit and comfortable lab re-bagging artifacts while listening to music usually doesn’t factor into the adventurer stereotype that many people may assume is what archaeology is all about. Working in a lab may even sound incredibly dull and uninteresting. However, this simply isn’t the case, and I can attest to the fact that lab work can actually be incredibly interesting and fun- while still fulfilling its primary purpose of processing, identifying, and analyzing artifacts.

...and what they actually do a lot of the time.

…vs. lab work.

Though originally our groups had no idea what to expect from our two-hour long lab work session, we took to our task of re-labelling and re-bagging artifacts fairly easily and quickly. The work was relatively simple when we got into a rhythm, but still managed to hold our attention. Even the seemingly endless fragmented animal bones were exclaimed over when we were told what part of the body they came from. Teeth, ankle bones, even bits of turtle shell were the source of many “Cool!”s and “Wow!”s. There was never a moment of boredom, and the time flew by because we were constantly learning more and more about the artifacts we were handling.

Despite being genuinely fascinating, lab work also serves several important purposes. As was the case with the artifacts that we were working with, sometimes mistakes in labelling or sorting are made in the field and accounted for and fixed in the lab. For instance, within bags that were predominantly mammal bones, we sometimes found a stray fish bone or bit of shell that had to be removed when we re-bagged the contents. Lab work is also important because it allows the archaeologist to clean and then more closely analyze the

Drill bits can be used in the lab to find the diameter of a pipe stem and thus determine what time period the pipe is from.

Drill bits can be used in the lab to find the diameter of a pipe stem and thus determine what time period the pipe is from.

artifacts. An artifact may be wrongly identified in the field for a number of reasons, and, upon analysis in the lab, be properly identified and dealt with accordingly. It may also prove difficult to determine what time period an artifact is from in the field, and access to special equipment, texts, or other tools that aren’t available during field work may be necessary.

Even though lab work may initially sound dull when juxtaposed against the “adventures” of field work, processing artifacts can, in fact, be just as enjoyable and interesting as finding them in the first place. Lab work allows the archaeologist to learn more about the artifacts they’ve found so they can accurately analyze them within the context of history. Because of this, lab work is a major pillar of archaeology that is necessary to understanding history to the best of our ability.

 Works Cited:

Image 1: http://www.designntrend.com/articles/5101/20130620/archaeology-ancient-mayan-city-jungle-southeast-mexico.htm

Image 2: http://www.uwlax.edu/sociology/archaeology/resources.htm

Image 3: http://nmscarcheologylab.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/spotlight-on-pipe-stems/

“Archaeological Methods.” Alabama Archaeology. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.          <http://bama.ua.edu/~alaarch/Methods/>.

“The Dig: Adventures in Archaeology.” ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://library.thinkquest.org/J001645/htdi.shtml>.

Tiver, Donald. “Becoming a Well-rounded Archaeologist.” Day of Archaeology. N.p., 29 July 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.dayofarchaeology.com/becoming-a-well-rounded-archaeologist/>.

Beer Jugs, Pottery and Archaeological Analogy

Posted on by
1

I was able to participate in archaeological lab work this week and I do not think I have ever been so excited to look at broken fragments of beer jugs like the one below.

19th century beer jug

Looking at a variety of artifacts from an excavation site in Annapolis, Maryland, I saw bags containing fish bones and mammal bones and at first look they all look the same. However, my professor was an expert in identifying bones and was able to explain distinctions between them. Small details like size and curvature along the bone edges can indicate to which animal a bone belonged. Over a course of two hours, I got pretty good at identifying pig toes. Also, we looked at different glass and we learned that vessel glass was most likely used as a container because it is identifiable by its shape. It is rarely flat like window glass.

Lab work was a chance to conduct cultural and historical interpretation from the artifacts we examined. For example, pieces of a jug we looked at like the one below shows agricultural adaptation specifically because of the small opening at the top. We can likely infer that this type of jug was used for liquids or the people who owned this jug wanted to regulate exactly how much they wanted to come out of the jug or put in. This piece of pottery is technological evidence that with analysis can give clues on the activities of the community during a time. An archaeologist can have an idea of the tool and pottery advancement, which can be telling of the social systems, and ideology of the people in the past.

Pottery

The purpose of lab work is to reconstruct the past and archaeologists use analogy to help. In archaeology, analogy is used to infer the identity of and relationships among archaeological data by comparing them with similar phenomena documented in human societies that are living or recorded historically (Ashmore, 180). Unknowingly, I was using analogy during my time in the lab. When examining the beer jug, I was comparing it to what I had previously seen today’s society. I thought about the evolution of the beer jug turned beer bottle and noticed that because of its similarities in form, reconstruction was easier to understand.

Artifacts provide information about societies’ cultures, environments, people, and animals. Artifacts are common but it is the history behind the item that reveals the value; thus, all artifacts should be respected and deemed valuable.

For further information on archaeology analogy, check out Wendy Ashmore’s and Robert J. Sharer’s book Discovering Our Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology.

Works Cited:

Ashmore, W.J., and Sharer, R.J., Discovering Our Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology. 6th Edition.

Wait, I Don’t Get To Dig Up Dinosaurs?

Posted on by
1

funny-pictures-fucking-science-auto-411842

Archeology is a discipline often shrouded in myth from popular culture. Characters such as Indiana Jones and Movies like The Mummy tend to lead people to associate archeology with the discovery and analysis of human remains. While human remains are undoubtedly interesting, there is a huge amount of information to be gleaned from animal bones discovered at archeological sites.

In fact, there is an entire discipline devoted to the study of these bones:  Zooarchaeology. This include the study of bones, scales, shells, and even hair. Basically anything that at one point belonged to an animal. Bones and shells are the most studied, generally because they preserve the best in the archeological record. It is important to understand the differences between zooarchaeology and paleontology. Often thanks to popular culture the two different disciplines are easily confused. Both study animals of the past, however the difference lies in the fact that archeologists study animal remains as a function of their relationships to a human past. Paleontologists study bones as a function of their relationship to the history of life on earth as a whole, not just human.

Even without dinosaur bones, there is plenty of variety to be uncovered at archeological sites. The bones of animals are often recovered in large quantities.  I saw this first hand during an archeology lab exercise this week, where my task was to assist in the reorganization of a variety of artifacts and ecofacts from a site in Annapolis, Maryland. Some of these items happened to be large bags consisting of a jumble of bone and fragments, that looked something like the below image.

blog image 2

Animal bones found at archeological sites could belong to domesticated herds, they could belong to pets, or wild animals hunted for food, or they could belong to pests such as rats and mice. So why does it matter. Why should we bother to separate out what type of animal each tiny piece of bone belonged to?

Studying animal bones provides knowledge about how people might have interacted with animals in the past. We have learned through bones such as these about what animal previous humans farmed, which they kept as pets and even which they chose to worship and/or sacrifice for religious purposes. Also from studying these bones archeologists can find indicators about the tools used in the past. Cut marks on the bone, can provide hints to the tools used to kill and butcher animals that did not die a natural death. The bones of small mammals such as rodents and birds, can even provide clues to the environment surrounding the exploratory site.

While there is no denying that the discovery of human skeletons tends to excite public interest, in many ways the tiniest rodent bone can provide just as much if not more information about the way those studied lived. Our relationship to animals and our manipulation of the environment has remained an important force throughout human history.

Works Cited:

Ashore, W.J., and Sharer, R.J., Discovering Our Past: A brief introduction to Archeology. 6th Edition.

Archaeological Lab Work: Buttons, Marbles, and Glass, OH MY!

Posted on by
1

Have you ever wondered what the job of an archaeologist entails? Is archaeology as action filled as it is depicted in the Indiana Jones movies?

 

(For your listening pleasure!)

This past Friday, I was lucky enough to put some of my own lingering questions about archaeology to rest. Through laboratory work with my archaeology class, I got a glimpse into the life of an archaeologist. Unfortunately, I did not take down any bad guys or run through any deserts, but needless to say, the experience proved to be quite interesting.

My hopes were not especially high for the lab work section of my archaeology course. Frankly, I was under the false impression that it would consist of manual labor in an eerie basement (plus, who really wants to do any sort of work on a Friday afternoon). However, I quickly realized just how terribly I had misjudged archaeological lab work.

Upon opening my first bag of artifacts from the Dunn Site, I became invigorated by the idea that I held ancient relics in my hands and that they represented a little piece of history. Most intriguing to me were not the well-preserved glass bottles and pottery, but rather, the little pieces—the buttons, the marbles, even fragments of glass. Was the button that of a rich man or did it belong to a little girl? Did a little boy use this marble in the schoolyard? Each of these items awaits an archaeologist to uncover its unique story

Native American Marbles

Native American Marbles

US Armed Forces Button

US Armed Forces Button

After recovering an artifact from a site, an archaeologist must create some order in what otherwise may appear to be a random set of objects. Thus, they work to classify the artifacts according to certain criteria. First, artifacts are generally classified according to material: glass, metal, ceramic, or stone. Within these groupings, archaeologists may sort them further. For example, glass may be sorted into two divisions: window glass and vessel glass. Once categorized, artifacts can be stored and then labeled based upon their respective trench unit and stratigraphic layer in which they were found.

While many people believe that an archaeologist’s main focus is to find an artifact, in reality, all of this work is completed with the main goal of finding out the effect that an artifact had on a culture–to determine that the button belonged to a rich man and the marble was, indeed, used by a boy in a schoolyard. In the end, the tiniest of artifacts can reveal the most about a past culture.

Works Cited:

Audio 1: http://rowthree.com/audio/indy_theme.mp3

Image 1: http://www.arrowheadology.com/forums/attachments/arrowheads-indian-artifacts/36588d1296162761-native-american-clay-marbles-php6np0xrpm.jpg

Image 2: http://arcadiamillvillage.blogspot.com/2011/06/artifact-of-week-us-armed-forces-button.html

http://www.digonsite.com/drdig/general/32.html

 

Art as a Memory of a Society

Posted on by
Reply

The Spanish conquest of common day Mexico altered the lives of the indigenous people immensely. Not only was the land changed, their social and political systems tested and altered, their way of live and religion were violently altered. Italian anthropologist’s, Carol Severi, study of this revealed the new religion that emerged from the situation the indigenous were thrust into. Christianity was delivered to the natives and their old religion was thrown out; but when the priests who taught Christianity left generations later, the natives had to adapt to a religion that used to be taught to them, and they created a blended religion, a mix of the new and old. Interesting enough, this was expressed through their art.  Dona Sebastiana was adapted, a version close enough to Saint Sebastian, but with enough differences to show the blend of old and new and creation of a new symbol. This art tells a great deal about the society.

Image of Dona Sebastiana

Image of Dona Sebastiana

As Severi brushed on in lecture, this relates to Aby Warburg and his study of art, mainly, his assertion that art serves more than visual pleasure. Warburg believes that art constructs the memory of a society, that art serves as a social memory as a society can choose what it what to presents to the rest of the world. This is a completely different spin on the view of art then I have ever heard of, but it is simply logical.  Art is a type of expression. People want to express parts of their lives that mean a lot to them, why else would one spend hours and a countless amount of effort constructing it if it wasn’t important.

Struggles, triumphs, changes, traditions, leaders, commoners, monuments, terror, love and so many more parts of a society are expressed through art as these are the important parts of this society, the parts they want the rest of the world to know.  Take Paris, a majority of the art associated with it is the Eiffel Tower. Because it represents the city and thats what its known for. Art from many societies express their leaders, as they hold much importance and influence the society greatly.

Photo of Paris, with Eiffel Tower front and center

Photo of Paris, with Eiffel Tower front and center

Art is a form of expression that others can’t change. Sure, there will be art where its non monumental to a society. However, much art holds that emphasis over a society. More than that, images are necessary to exercise a certain kind of thought, thoughts that the societies hold and express and share with the world through art.

References:

Picture 1:http://delgadoarts.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/dona-sebastiana-lady-sebastian/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aby_Warburg 

Picture 2http://write-shoot-cut.com/2013/01/25/advert-partypoker-fr/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aby_Warburg

Anthropology, Images, and Social Memory

Posted on by
Reply

Carlo Severi, an Italian anthropologist, has studied the connection between images and social memory. By asking questions such as, how images contribute to a society’s understanding of itself, and where history and tradition intersect, Severi has uncovered incredible findings about the aesthetic world. Perhaps the most important discovery of Severi’s is the necessity of images and how they allow cultures to interpret thoughts and build a common memory. He explains the value of seeing images as more than aesthetic materials; instead they have both historical and theoretical value that connects a society together.

Severi’s study of Mesoamerican and Catholic culture represents the importance of images and social identity. The Spanish conquest of Mexico not only took away political power and basic agency from Native societies; it also replaced their culture with European principles and values. Indigenous religions were systematically destroyed as people were forced to adapt to a foreign culture. Since worldview is fundamental to societies, this destruction of culture caused incredible strife for Native people. As one can imagine, affected societies struggled to hold on to previous traditions in the face of major social change. The common memory of historical Mesoamerican societies used images to hold onto their religion as the Spanish converted the area.

A major theme in indigenous Mesoamerican religion is respect towards death and the dead. However, death is seen as dark and evil in many Anglo-Saxon cultures and adaptations of Christianity. Upon the Spanish attempts to convert societies to Catholicism, a sect of people retained culture via the incorporation of Dona Sebastiana, or the Saint of Death. Paintings, sculptures, and other religious materials were created to depict Dona Sebastiana and death’s triumph over Jesus. Catholics from Europe obviously do not condone such iconography.

By retaining an important figure as they were being converted to a new religion, native Mesoamericans were able to hold on to a piece of their culture. Images created in honor of Dona Sebastiana allowed communities to build a image and interpretation of the Saint of Death and ultimately allowed a common memory and tradition to be created. Besides the significance of Dona Sebastiana in historical religious terms, the icon also represents the inversion of the death of Christ, revealing the triumph of death rather than the opposite, which is traditionally celebrated in Catholicism. Moreover, in social terms, there image of Dona Sebastiana’s arrow piercing Jesus shows the conflict of enemy cultures. All in all, Severi’s presentation illuminated the connection between social changes, images, and common memory.

by Kathryn Marshall

Wait…This Isn’t History Class.

Posted on by
1

History is the study of the past, usually in a narrative sequence of events. History places events in nice neat time periods ignoring the complexities of how the transitions occurred. Archaeology helps provide the understanding of how these changes occurred through examining and analyzing culture. One of the ways this is done is through fieldwork.

In class we examined the Cultural History of Anasazi; Anasazi is the archaeological term used to describe one of the four prehistoric Puebloan peoples in the region of the American Southwest right above Mesoamerica. In the Cultural History we learned that Anasazi culture dated back as far as 1,500 BC and has been spilt into eight time periods based on their tools, religion, architecture, and agriculture. The first time period is framed from 1,500BC- AD 50, where they used cave campsites for storage but in the next time period from AD50- AD500 they developed pit houses. Pit houses were built partially underground with a mound above the surface and a hole in the roof called a sipapu that symbolized the entrance into the spirit world.

This is a reproduction of a pit house at Mesa Verde National Park. Picture: Wikimedia Commons.

This is a reproduction of a pit house at Mesa Verde National Park. Picture: Wikimedia Commons.

Over time agriculture became more developed which led to communities being formed as well as a spiritual structures called kivas. The communities kept expanding to large pueblos and many kivas until the seventh time period from 1350 AD- 1600AD where the kivas started to become very scarce. Then the last time period from 1600AD- present the Spanish arrive and establish missions.

Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde National Park. Example of how the Pueblo Society became.

Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde National Park. Example of how the Pueblo Society became.

All of this is a great framework of history of Anasazi but it doesn’t tell us the hows and why. We know from 1350AD- 1600AD the kivas became very scarce but why? What happened to the religion that could have caused that, did the Katchina cult development have any bearing on the disappearance of the kivas? These questions are where archaeology becomes helpful. To explain, Patricia Lambert of Utah State University and Brian Billman and Banks Leonard of Soil Systems excavated a pit house near Cowboy Wash in southwestern Colorado in the late twelfth-century A.D where they found a lot of inconsistency to the cultural history layout. The site was a Pueblo III habitation, during this time period pit house have been long outdated and replaced with large pueblos. They also found that the sipapu had been sealed and the criteria for cannibalism had been met. With this newfound information we can start to make theories as to why these particularities had occurred. Some believe the land was a marginal environment not fit for agriculture which wouldn’t allow this particular area to have time to create large complex housing. The cannibalism could have occurred simply from a lack of food and desperation; however other believe it could have been a spiritual offering since the sipapu had been sealed.

As you can see history gives us a nice framework to work within but archaeology allows us to closely examine and analyze the convolution of these events through culture.

sources:

April Beisaw, Archaeology 100, Class #15

A Case for Cannibalism,” ARCHAEOLOGY, January/February 1994

Amélie A. Walker, Anasazi Cannibalism?, Volume 50 Number 5, September/October 1997

Chan Chan: A Case Study in Settlement Archaeology

Posted on by
1

Analysis and interpretation are crucial stages in the archaeological research process. After all, in order to interpret findings and apply appropriate theories, an archaeologist must be able to understand the data. Reconstructing the past involves a mix of both stages, as an archeologist focuses first on relationships and components within the data and then reconstructs data on a larger scale in order to interpret it.

Archaeologists are able to gain insight into past activities through interpretation based on three categories: technology, social systems, and ideology. Within the social systems division, settlement archaeology uses spatial distributions of activities to ultimately understand how societies functioned. Assuming that spatial patterns reflect past human behavior, archaeologists are able to map out the lives of previous societies. An incredible example of the analytical abilities settlement archaeology provides is the research of Chan Chan, Peru.

The ruins of Chan Chan are found in the Moche valley of Peru. This once great kingdom was the capital of the Chimu people and was the largest city in pre-Columbian America. This city was highly advanced with an economy based on agriculture, supported by irrigation ditches. Buildings were made of adobe brick. This thriving city left behind clues into social structure, stratification, and inequality by the architecture and layout of the city.

Three general types of housing made up the city of Chan Chan. Small units, presumably slum architecture, were found on the edges of the city. There were 35 intermediately sized, larger units that housed more elite members of society. The center of the city was comprised nine rectangular structures, separated from the rest of the areas by thick earthen walls. Since Chan Chan was small in terms of area with a high population density, the fact these palaces contained large amounts of space points to a hierarchical society. Another important aspect of the palaces was the limited amount of entrances. It can be inferred that the elite part of Chimu society had limited interactions with other parts of society. Inside the palaces, there were also burial sites, temples, kitchens, gardens, orchards, which shows the diversity in how space was used. Compared to the barrios of the city, the city center temples were constructed in complex, symmetrical ways, with elaborate designs. The barrios, however, were built more clumsily and simply. These three sections of architecture tells archaeologists how the Chimu society was divided.

Settlement archaeology, by analyzing the layout of the city spatially, has allowed interpretation of social interactions of the Chimu people. Society was very hierarchical, with power concentrated in only a few people. The decorations of the palaces also show that the elite had leisure time, as those who lived in the less-durable housing did not have time to spend on their living arrangements. These interpretations illuminate the intricacies of past cultures, as well as tracing the evolution and adaptation by examining cultures through time. By analyzing the settlements of the past, archaeologists are able to make valuable interpretations with relevant implications.

sources:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/105252/Chan-Chan/

 

-Kathryn Marshall