We welcome this opportunity to respond to the comments by Karen Olsen Bruhns and her colleagues (Reference Bruhns, Brooks and Truhan2017). Our Latin American Antiquity article concluded that cinnabar pigment found by archaeologists in northern Peru was produced at Huancavelica in south-central Peru. In contrast, Bruhns and her colleagues suggest the mines near Azogues in southern Ecuador were an important cinnabar source for prehispanic Ecuador and Peru. In their commentary, they introduce new historic and geologic information to support their view, but a critical analysis demonstrates that it does not undermine our conclusions.
In our article, we present geological and historic evidence indicating that cinnabar (HgS) was never mined in the Azogues area and that the name of the town near the mines is misleading (Burger et al. Reference Burger, Lane and Cooke2016:25–29). The rumor that the area is rich in cinnabar resulted from a colonial hoax by individuals seeking to profit from Spanish Crown policies designed to encourage mercury production.
In 2013, Bruhns and her colleagues took advantage of a bulldozer track to study the mines near Azogues, and in 2016 they returned to collect samples from the Boquerón mine referred to in historical documents. They were unable to find cinnabar in the mining area, but they sampled sandstone at the Boquerón mine and analyzed it to test the hypothesis that it once hosted cinnabar deposits. They found high mercury concentrations (11–111 ppm). Nonetheless, these results do not prove the existence of cinnabar ore. Many hydrothermal polymetallic ore deposits and their host rocks such as sandstone contain high concentrations of mercury. Indeed, some of the highest values (>2,000 ppm Hg) are found in the Chilean Andes in rocks devoid of significant cinnabar. Documenting 10s to 100s (or even 1,000s) ppm of Hg does not provide evidence for the occurrence of a cinnabar deposit in the past or the present.
The authors go on to dismiss the relevance of work done by one of us who cored lakes near Azogues, Ecuador. They fail to appreciate that cinnabar mining left a legacy of regional Hg pollution that is recorded by lakes regardless of prevailing wind direction. This is because lake cores offer an integrated archive of regional pollutant deposition over years to decades. These time spans capture the mercurial nature of regional winds. A good example is the presence of mercury pollution in El Junco Lake in the Galápagos, which has been fingerprinted isotopically as coming from preindustrial mining in Huancavelica (Cooke et al. Reference Cooke, Bascom, Biester and Wolfe2009). The absence of mercury pollution in the lakes near Azogues is interpreted as supporting our assertion that significant mercury mining never occurred in the area.
The newly introduced historical material is no more a repudiation of our conclusions than the geological evidence. The estanco document proves nothing about mercury production. It is simply a formal approval by King Philip II of a decree by Peru's Viceroy Conde de Nieva overturning a monopoly grant to Cuenca corregidor Gil Ramírez Dávalos that gave exclusive rights to produce mercury from his mine claims near Cuenca, and for Enrique Garcés to have the same rights for his claim near Huamanga (presumably Huancavelica). Both had won monopolies from Nieva's predecessor that stated no one else was to work their claims or even search for other mercury deposits. There is no mention of mercury production at either site. Both men had sought exclusive rights for mining mercury, but the attempted monopoly was deemed prejudicial to the royal treasury and the “public good.” This decree therefore states that anyone wishing to develop mercury mines could do so throughout the Viceroyalty of Peru as long as they registered claims and paid the tax to the Spanish Crown known as the quinto real (“royal fifth”).
The 1799 drawing presented in Bruhns and colleagues’ (Reference Bruhns, Brooks and Truhan2017) commentary also says nothing of mercury production. It is a typical late-Bourbon document demonstrating that royally appointed intendants were desperate to raise revenues. In this case, Cuenca's ambitious intendant was José Antonio de Vallejo. The captions on the drawing do not say that mercury or cinnabar is being produced but rather that the old mining shafts are being explored. Others are described as collapsed. The image includes cartouche drawings of mines, mills, and furnaces, but these are merely suggestive.
In the commentary, there is a striking absence of archaeological evidence from Ecuador that might suggest a local cinnabar source. No scientifically confirmed cinnabar pigment has been recovered at any Ecuadorian archaeological site, nor has it been identified on the multitude of prehispanic objects in archaeological museums and private collections in Ecuador. We never denied the possibility that geological deposits of cinnabar exist in Ecuador, only that there is no evidence that such deposits were ever exploited in prehispanic times.
In contrast to the lack of evidence for Ecuador, there is abundant information indicating prehispanic cinnabar mining occurred in south-central Peru. This evidence includes records of cinnabar mining in lake sediment cores, colonial historical records referring to prehispanic use of the Huancavelica mines, accounts by Spanish chroniclers about the use of cinnabar body paint by the Inca elite, and cinnabar pigment residues in burials and on precolumbian artifacts. Cinnabar from the Huancavelica mercury mining district has a distinctive isotopic signature, and analysis of the artifactual cinnabar in the elite burials at Pacopampa and Chongoyape (700–500 BC) and on a Lambayeque gold burial mask (AD 1000–1300) yielded results consistent with the isotopic signature of the Huancavelica deposits.
Finally, Bruhns and her colleagues (Reference Bruhns, Brooks and Truhan2017) assert that we “mistakenly claim that Huancavelica in Peru was the only source of vermilion pigment in prehispanic Peru.” This statement is incorrect. While we argue that Huancavelica was the “preeminent source” of cinnabar in prehispanic Peru, at least one other source of cinnabar was exploited in late prehistoric times. As we state in our article, “samples of cinnabar pigment taken from three digging boards from the south coast of Peru during the period of Inca expansion (ca. AD 1430–1532) produced [isotopic] results that indicated that the objects had been adorned with cinnabar from geological sources other than the one in Huancavelica” (Burger et al. Reference Burger, Lane and Cooke2016:30).
The structure and character of long-distance exchange of cinnabar in the prehispanic Andes is only beginning to be appreciated by archaeologists. We hope that this open exchange of ideas will stimulate additional research and progress on this intriguing subject.
You have
Access
We welcome this opportunity to respond to the comments by Karen Olsen Bruhns and her colleagues (Reference Bruhns, Brooks and Truhan2017). Our Latin American Antiquity article concluded that cinnabar pigment found by archaeologists in northern Peru was produced at Huancavelica in south-central Peru. In contrast, Bruhns and her colleagues suggest the mines near Azogues in southern Ecuador were an important cinnabar source for prehispanic Ecuador and Peru. In their commentary, they introduce new historic and geologic information to support their view, but a critical analysis demonstrates that it does not undermine our conclusions.
In our article, we present geological and historic evidence indicating that cinnabar (HgS) was never mined in the Azogues area and that the name of the town near the mines is misleading (Burger et al. Reference Burger, Lane and Cooke2016:25–29). The rumor that the area is rich in cinnabar resulted from a colonial hoax by individuals seeking to profit from Spanish Crown policies designed to encourage mercury production.
In 2013, Bruhns and her colleagues took advantage of a bulldozer track to study the mines near Azogues, and in 2016 they returned to collect samples from the Boquerón mine referred to in historical documents. They were unable to find cinnabar in the mining area, but they sampled sandstone at the Boquerón mine and analyzed it to test the hypothesis that it once hosted cinnabar deposits. They found high mercury concentrations (11–111 ppm). Nonetheless, these results do not prove the existence of cinnabar ore. Many hydrothermal polymetallic ore deposits and their host rocks such as sandstone contain high concentrations of mercury. Indeed, some of the highest values (>2,000 ppm Hg) are found in the Chilean Andes in rocks devoid of significant cinnabar. Documenting 10s to 100s (or even 1,000s) ppm of Hg does not provide evidence for the occurrence of a cinnabar deposit in the past or the present.
The authors go on to dismiss the relevance of work done by one of us who cored lakes near Azogues, Ecuador. They fail to appreciate that cinnabar mining left a legacy of regional Hg pollution that is recorded by lakes regardless of prevailing wind direction. This is because lake cores offer an integrated archive of regional pollutant deposition over years to decades. These time spans capture the mercurial nature of regional winds. A good example is the presence of mercury pollution in El Junco Lake in the Galápagos, which has been fingerprinted isotopically as coming from preindustrial mining in Huancavelica (Cooke et al. Reference Cooke, Bascom, Biester and Wolfe2009). The absence of mercury pollution in the lakes near Azogues is interpreted as supporting our assertion that significant mercury mining never occurred in the area.
The newly introduced historical material is no more a repudiation of our conclusions than the geological evidence. The estanco document proves nothing about mercury production. It is simply a formal approval by King Philip II of a decree by Peru's Viceroy Conde de Nieva overturning a monopoly grant to Cuenca corregidor Gil Ramírez Dávalos that gave exclusive rights to produce mercury from his mine claims near Cuenca, and for Enrique Garcés to have the same rights for his claim near Huamanga (presumably Huancavelica). Both had won monopolies from Nieva's predecessor that stated no one else was to work their claims or even search for other mercury deposits. There is no mention of mercury production at either site. Both men had sought exclusive rights for mining mercury, but the attempted monopoly was deemed prejudicial to the royal treasury and the “public good.” This decree therefore states that anyone wishing to develop mercury mines could do so throughout the Viceroyalty of Peru as long as they registered claims and paid the tax to the Spanish Crown known as the quinto real (“royal fifth”).
The 1799 drawing presented in Bruhns and colleagues’ (Reference Bruhns, Brooks and Truhan2017) commentary also says nothing of mercury production. It is a typical late-Bourbon document demonstrating that royally appointed intendants were desperate to raise revenues. In this case, Cuenca's ambitious intendant was José Antonio de Vallejo. The captions on the drawing do not say that mercury or cinnabar is being produced but rather that the old mining shafts are being explored. Others are described as collapsed. The image includes cartouche drawings of mines, mills, and furnaces, but these are merely suggestive.
In the commentary, there is a striking absence of archaeological evidence from Ecuador that might suggest a local cinnabar source. No scientifically confirmed cinnabar pigment has been recovered at any Ecuadorian archaeological site, nor has it been identified on the multitude of prehispanic objects in archaeological museums and private collections in Ecuador. We never denied the possibility that geological deposits of cinnabar exist in Ecuador, only that there is no evidence that such deposits were ever exploited in prehispanic times.
In contrast to the lack of evidence for Ecuador, there is abundant information indicating prehispanic cinnabar mining occurred in south-central Peru. This evidence includes records of cinnabar mining in lake sediment cores, colonial historical records referring to prehispanic use of the Huancavelica mines, accounts by Spanish chroniclers about the use of cinnabar body paint by the Inca elite, and cinnabar pigment residues in burials and on precolumbian artifacts. Cinnabar from the Huancavelica mercury mining district has a distinctive isotopic signature, and analysis of the artifactual cinnabar in the elite burials at Pacopampa and Chongoyape (700–500 BC) and on a Lambayeque gold burial mask (AD 1000–1300) yielded results consistent with the isotopic signature of the Huancavelica deposits.
Finally, Bruhns and her colleagues (Reference Bruhns, Brooks and Truhan2017) assert that we “mistakenly claim that Huancavelica in Peru was the only source of vermilion pigment in prehispanic Peru.” This statement is incorrect. While we argue that Huancavelica was the “preeminent source” of cinnabar in prehispanic Peru, at least one other source of cinnabar was exploited in late prehistoric times. As we state in our article, “samples of cinnabar pigment taken from three digging boards from the south coast of Peru during the period of Inca expansion (ca. AD 1430–1532) produced [isotopic] results that indicated that the objects had been adorned with cinnabar from geological sources other than the one in Huancavelica” (Burger et al. Reference Burger, Lane and Cooke2016:30).
The structure and character of long-distance exchange of cinnabar in the prehispanic Andes is only beginning to be appreciated by archaeologists. We hope that this open exchange of ideas will stimulate additional research and progress on this intriguing subject.