21:2 - project irenedigitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucar021-003.pdf · 21:2...

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS

21:2

A SURVEY OF PERUVIAN FISHINGCOMMUNITIES

BY

E. A. HAMMEL AND YNEZ D. HAASE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESSBERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES

1962

A SURVEY OF PERUIANFISHING COMMUNITIES

BY


ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDSVol. 2I, No. 2

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS


Editors (Berkeley): J. H. Rowe, D. H. Hymes, J. D. Clark

Volume 21, No. 2, pp. 211-230, 5 figures in text,1 map

Submitted by editors May 29, 1962Issued December 7, 1962

Price, 75 cents

University of California PressBerkeley and Los Angeles

California

Cambridge University PressLondon, England

Manufactured in the United States of America

CONTENTSPage

Introduction ................................................ 211

General Characteristics of Fishing Communities. ....................................... 212

The Technology of Fishing . ................................................ 214Marine Products Taken. ................................................ 214Nets ................................................................,,,,.214Traps .................... 218Hook-and-line Fishing .................... 218Spears, Gaffs, and Miscellaneous Artifacts ....................................... 218Water Craft ................................................ 219Knots and Splices .221

Role Differentiation and Economic Arrangements .222Manufacture of Equipment ....................................................... 222Marketing ...................................................................... 222Profit Sharing .................................................................. 222Sexual Division of Labor ............................. 222

Summary and Conclusions .223

Appendix: Descriptions of Some Communities . 225

Bibliography ....................... . . . . . . . . . . 228

Figures in Text

1. Red de cortina .2152. Chinchorros ................................................................. 2173. Caballitos del mar . 2204. Bote de vela (Pisco) .... ....... 2215. Zapato chalana (Cerro Azul) ................................................. 221

Map 1

Peruvian fishing communities surveyed .................................... facing 211

[ iii I

/I

4.

loPe

Chimboto

Chineos

Purto Huormey

Puerto

o Huocho

to ChooyXAno

Call LIMA

4I

Q 00 looKilometers

Map 1. Peruvian fishing communities surveyed.

.NI

A SURVEY OF PERUVIANFISHING COMMUNITIES

BY


INTRODUCTION

One of the least known areas of mestizo culturein Latin America centers around the organizationanid operation of coastal fishing communities. Thelack of information is the more disturbing in Perubecause of the close association of a fishing eco-nomy with the earliest recorded horticulture in thearea and the importance of maritime activities inthe development of aboriginal culture. The domesti-cation of certain plants (e.g., lima beans, achira,1ucuma, avocado, pacae, cotton, and gourds) may havebeen accomplished or accepted by coastal fishermenas early as 2500 B. C. It is of further interestthat the earliest evidence of domesticated plantsincludes cotton and gourds, which were employednot for subsistence but for industrial purposes inthe basic fishing economy, that is, for the makingof lines, nets, and net floats.'

The clear importance of a developed fishingeconomy to the rise of civilization in Peru andthe probable continued role of maritime operationsin trade throughout the whole span of Peruviancivilization are in strong contrast to the fact thatlittle of the presumed aboriginal heritage of fishingand navigational techniques can be identified assurviving today.2 The cultural inventory, terminol-ogy, techniques, and sociology of Peruvian coastalfishing are apparently overwhelmingly Spanish,covered with an overlay of later European andNorth American introductions. Scholarly opinion dif-fers somewhat on the precise nature of the histori-cal processes involved. Foster (1960: 77-86) pointsout that traditional Spanish fishing is among themost highly developed of such complexes in theworld (see also Rodriguez Santamaria, 1927). Sug-gesting that little of the variety of Iberian equip-ment and techniques is to be found in Peru orother coastal areas of Mestizo America, he mini-mizes the presence of aboriginal forms as wellas the effect of more recent diffusion. Murphy

'For discussion of the aboriginal background, see Bird, 1946;Bennett and Bird, 1949: 116- 123; Estrada, 1957: 11 (citing Oviedo),47-56 (citing Dampier, Baleato); Schweigger, 1943: 252 (citingCieza de Le6n); Lothrop, 1932; Means, 1942; Garcilaso, 1945;Cobo, 1956; Vasquez de Espinosa, 1948; Kostritsky, 1955; Engel,1957; Lanning, MS; Edwards, MS, 1960.

ZFor comments on the probable role of navigation, see Willey,1955: 42; Coe, 1960. On techniques of navigation, see Lothrop,1932; Means, 1942; Edwards, MS, 1960.

(1925: 214-215), on the other hand, regards coastalPeruvian fishing as a somewhat reduced set ofaboriginal techniques with a few more recent (prin-cipally Italian) elements added, ignoring the extentand detail of Iberian introductions, with which hemay not have been, in fact, familiar. We shallattempt to show in this paper that both these ori-entations are indeed correct, but that they applyto different segments of the cultural inventory. Ifone examines nets and the sociology of fishing,Foster's opinion appears generally correct. If oneexamines vessel types ahistorically and takes ac-count of the date of Murphy's work the oppositeis the case. This study, however, is not offeredas a final solution to the culture-historical prob-lem of how aboriginal Peruvian fishing has beentransformed over the years into its modern forms.It is, rather, an attempt to add to that body of datawhich will be necessary for the solution of the prob-lem and to offer suggestions which seem legitimatein terms of the information currently available.

The survey on which this paper is based wasundertaken in 1957-1958 and covered the Peruviancoast from Ica to the Ecuadorean border.3 Inform-ants were consulted in thirty-seven villages, anddata were obtained on ten more, either by personalobservation or by questioning informants in otherlocalities. The rapidity of the survey (5,000 kms.in 10 days) and the difficulties of establishing rap-port with so many informants in a short time makesuperficiality of the data inevitable (we were sus-pected by most fishermen of being either tax col-lectors or of spying out new fishing grounds forthe commercial fishing companies with which theyare in continual conflict). We can only hope thatbreadth of coverage will compensate for that faultin some degree, and that the information presentedwill serve as a guide for further investigation.

3This survey was undertaken by the authors after comparisonof field notes from their respective areas (Hammel in Ica, Haasein Sechura) indicated that investigation of the intervening areaswould be advisable. Hammel's research was done with the sup-port of the Social Science Research Council, Haase's with that ofthe Geography Branch, Office of Naval Research. The authorsare grateful to their respective sponsors for their support. Weare also obliged to G. M. Foster for his comments and advicewhile the field research was in progress and to him and J. H.Rowe for comments on a draft of this paper.

[ 211 ]

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FISHING COMMUNITIES

The 43 settlements on which some demographicinformation was available have an approximate totalpopulation of 23,000 persons dependent to a majordegree on, and directly involved in, fishing (see Ap-pendix). (Schweigger, 1943: 264 and Fiedler, 1943: 63give roughly comparable figures.) Settlements rangein population from a dozen to 5,000 inhabitants; themean is about 535 but the modal only 200 persons.The distribution is thus markedly skewed; only 5 com-munities have a population of over 1,000. Few of thesettlements and individuals treated here are involvedprimarily in fishing for commercial canneries or pro-cessing factories; thus, segments of the fishing popu-lation of some large coastal cities (e.g., Callao) areomitted. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that muchof the catching of fish for consumption without inter-mediate processing, or perhaps for drying and salting,is distinctly commercial, not subsistence, in nature,and it is the larger communities among those con-sidered which are most extensively involved in fish-ing for the market. (See Cobo, 1956, I: 299 and Vas-quez de Espinosa, 1948: 371, 462, for comments oncommercial fishing during the colonial period, andRaimondi, 1942, I:88, 189, for remarks on the repub-lican period.) Only the smallest communities (popula-tion under 100) engage in fishing primarily as a sub-sistence technique; of these there are about a dozen.

Except for the larger communities, fishing villagestend to be more conservative and poorer than theaverage coastal agricultural settlement. Houses arepredominantly of wattle-and-daub (quincha) or just ofcane, as were many of their aboriginal prototypes.The relative lack of adobe in fishing-village construc-tion is a function not only of the lack of materials onthe arid and often sandy locales of the settlements,of the seasonal and camplike character of some, butalso of the poverty of many of the communities, sincequincha construction is commonest in poorer houseseverywhere on the coast. Adherence to traditionalmedical practices and to Iberian-derived food taboosis strong in fishing villages, but there is little in thedata gathered to indicate special supernatural beliefsrelating to fishing and to the sea. (The standard cor-pus of "magical" reference in many areas is, in fact,the Bristol Almanac, and possibly important phenomenasuch as the phases of the moon are considered onlywith respect to their effect on the tides and the lightthey provide.) Fraternal organizations (gremios) seemto be relatively unimportant today, although they some-times support a local saint; the elaborate functions ofthe Iberian fishermen's organizations appear to be ab-sent. (However, Fiedler, 1943:64, 1944:114-115, reportsgremios with memberships ranging from 15 to morethan 1,000 and functions similar to some of those ofIberian gremios.)

Social relationships within and between fishing com-munities and between these and neighboring settlementsvary widely in detail. The authority structure of thefishing population as such is largely informal, althougheach village of any size has a local official, the sargento,whose duty it is to enforce regulations pertainingto fishing practices and the registration and operation

of vessels, and to report infractions to the capitaniaunder the jurisdiction of which his village falls. (Thesargento and the official superstructure above himthus perform some of the regulative functions of theIberian fishermen's gremio; cf. Foster, 1960:84, onits decline in Spain.) Sargentos are appointed by thecapitania of the nearest large port; for example, thesargento of Laguna Grande is appointed by and is res-ponsible to the capitania of Pisco. In some villagesthe fishermen claim that they elect their sargento; itseems, in fact, that they elect a candidate who is ap-proved by the capitania, but final authority rests withthat office. The position of the sargento in enforcingthe law is a difficult one, since he is one of the vil-lagers but nevertheless responsible to an outside andsomewhat foreign authority. As a result, infractionsby his personal friends are seldom noted, while thoseby his enemies are frequently reported. The officethus serves as a focal point for local factionalismwhich is exploited by the sargento and by the capitania.(Unfortunately, we have no data on the relationshipsbetween the capitania, the sargentos, and the gremios,where the latter exist.)

Larger fishing communities are often rather self-contained in matters of marriage and compadrazgoand may have their own market to which fish buyerscome. Smaller communities often form a social clus-ter around the large ones; thus men in small fishingvillages may have many relatives, including affines,in a major fishing center nearby. Neighboring fishingvillages are socially tied together, but the ties seldomextend for a great distance, and there is no strongsolidarity of fishermen as opposed to farmers alongthe coast, except occasionally on a local level. Indeed,some agricultural communities are closely tied toneighboring fishing villages. Marriages are contractedfreely between the two kinds of settlements, and manyfishermen maintain dual residence, spending part ofthe year farming and the rest fishing. The combinationof farming and fishing reflects the aboriginal dual eco-nomy and is most evident today at two locales on thecoast-Laguna Grande (near Ica) and Sechura. Therelationships in these communities are of sufficientinterest to warrant more detailed description. (Seealso Gillin's account of Huanchaco and of the relation-ships between Las Delicias and Moche, 1947:28-31).

The fishing village of Laguna Grande, at the northend of the Bahia de la Independencia, has a constantminimum population of about 60 people and a peakpopulation during the summer of about 300 persons.Almost all the seasonal population comes from thesingle village of Comatrana, just outside the city ofIca; Laguna Grande is, in fact, an outpost of Coma-trana. Some of the permanent fishermen at LagunaGrande have land in the Ica Valley which is tendedby relatives or rented out; the temporary fishermencome to the coastal outpost in the slack period beforethe annual floods are due (these occur between lateDecember and early March). The middlemen andbuyers (compradores) who pick up fish at LagunaGrande and transport it in trucks to Ica, or even toLima, are almost all from Comatrana. The close

[ 212 1

HAMMEL AND HAASE: PERUVIAN FISHING COMMUNITIES

relationship between the agricultural and the fishingcommunity is illustrated in some curious ways; forexample, the favorite tool for scraping hulls andcollecting certain shellfish at Laguna Grande is thefarmer' s lampa (spade), for collecting other shell-fish, a rake. The associational pattern is the tradi-tional one in this area, as it probably is at otherplaces on the coast. Informants in the valley reportedthat as recently as a generation ago many farmers,particularly from the southern end of the cultivatedzone (Ocucaje-Callango), spent the period before theannual floods in fishing and drying the catch andwere summoned back to their fields by runner whenthe water came. It is of some interest that theassociation between Laguna Grande and Comatranahas been strengthened in recent years by improved(truck) transportation. What was a fourteen-hourtrip can now be made in two or three hours. SinceLaguna Grande is a dry camp, greater quantities ofwater can now be brought to it, allowing a largerpermanent or seasonal population, and the catch can

be transported more quickly to market.The situation near Sechura is a similar one. Al-

most all the inhabitants of Sechura are fishermen or

fishermen-farmers, and they or their relatives ex-

ploit marine resources in a series of neighboringvillages-for example, Matacaballo, Constante, Para-chique, and Chulliyache. (Many of the fishermen inthe Negritos-Pizarro zone are also of Sechurandescent; see Appendix.) It is of some interest thatthese very traditional villages near Sechura are theonly locales encountered on the coast at which some

aboriginal coastal speech may still exist. When ques-

tioned about puzzling features of their dialect, thefishermen declined to comment; to the best of our

knowledge and powers of discrimination, however,they were employing a series of non-Spanish andnon- Quechua words, together with Spanish vocabulary,in a Spanish syntactical framework. They were, ofcourse, quite capable of speaking the standard localSparlish as well, and shifted to it as soon as theywere questioned about their speech; evidently theywere aware of the distinctions involved. (Our obser-vations were confirmed by the comments of RosaFung de Lanning, in personal communication, and bythe nineteenth-century remarks of Middendorf, 1894,II:414-417.)

A third village which presents an interesting patternof association with the agricultural population is LosChinos (near Nepeiia). Informants there said that theywere almost all from the area of Huaraz, in the Calle-j6n de Huaylas, and that regular contact was main-tained with their home area. One of the commonestnames in the village is Huamanchumu, close to the"Huamanchumo" recorded by Gillin (1947:51, 103) asa family name of "true Huanchaqueros" and also asa Moche patronym ([o] and [u] occur in free varia-tion word-finally in the Spanish dialect of many nativeQuechua speakers). In view of the informants' state-ments of their own origin and Gillin' s analysis oflocal patronyms not far to the north, the associationalpattern between the coast and the Callej6n may proveto be an old one. Such a conclusion would, indeed, besupported by ceramic evidence from the Moche andRecuay aboriginal cultures (see Larco Hoyle, 1960).Further evidence for coastal-sierran relations comesfrom the Chiclayo-Sechura coastal zone, which isseasonally visited by serranos, who come down tofish (C. Edwards, personal communication).

Thus, there is a persistence in some areas of theclose aboriginal farmer-fisher relationship whichseems to have been disturbed in other regions by theincreased commercialization of fishing and gradualincorporation of fishing activities into a separate andindependent economic sphere. The disruption is, ofcourse, greatest in zones of those major commercialenterprises in which marine products are canned orprocessed into fertilizer. On the other hand, modernmeans of transportation have allowed intensificationof fishing activities by fishermen- farmers when theproduct was designed for direct market sale, or fortraditional drying and salting and subsequent sale, whenother conditions were favorable. All available evidenceseems to indicate that the disruptions date from a periodno earlier than the middle 1800's and that they are attri-butable in large part to an influx of Italian entrepreneurs(and possibly fishermen as well) about that time. Asnoted, there are still some small villages in whichfishing is the primary and perhaps almost the solesubsistence activity (e.g., Jahuay); this, too, may bea remnant of an early pattern of isolated fishing hamletsin areas in which horticulture was marginal or perhapsimpossible (e.g., the aboriginal remains in northernChile [Bird, 1946]).

213

THE TECHNOLOGY OF FISHING

MARINE PRODUCTS TAKEN

More than one hundred varieties of fish, sea mam-mals, turtles, and a number of invertebrates andplants are customarily fished or gathered along thePeruvian coast, attesting the excellence of the fishingwaters. Without detailed investigation by a competentbiologist, it is impossible to provide an accurate listof marine animals and plants encountered and de-scribed on this survey, since they were recorded bytheir local names. The variety of such names is con-fusing; the same term will be applied to differentforms in different areas, and, conversely, differentterms will sometimes be applied to the same form.It is therefore of little value to attempt a cataloguehere of the fauna and flora exploited (for faunal listssee Hildebrand, 1946; Peru, 1950-56; Fiedler, 1943:24-28; Murphy, 1925:227-238, and Cobo, 1956, I:292 ff.),but it is worthy of note from a culture-historicalstandpoint that the names for biological forms arealmost entirely Spanish, a situation paralleled in otherareas of fishing and boating terminology.

NETS

By far the most popular means of taking fish onthe Peruvian coast today is with some form of net.(For information on the possible predominance of linefishing in aboriginal times, see below.) Unlike Spanishfishermen, Peruvians do not seem to use a singlegeneral term to refer to all nets (Spanish, arte); theclosest approach to such a term is la red, but it re-fers primarily to varieties of gill nets. The followingdiscussion employs the most widely used terms foreach type of net; these, like other fishing terms pre-sented here, are usually given in Spanish to avoidinaccuracies of translation and to preserve regionaldifferences when these are stated.

The commonest net type today is the red de cortina(gill net) reported as red derecha by Fiedler,1943:51and Coker, 1910:345, and sometimes referred to inmodern sources as red agallera). There is no goodevidence for the presence of the red in aboriginaltimes; all evidence, including terminological features,points to its introduction in postconquest times. Intypical Spanish fashion, varieties of the red are oftenreferred to by the name of the animal they are de-signed to catch, for example, bonitera, sardinera,pejerreyera, _ojinovera, tortuguera. The mesh sizeof each of these net types is different, i anging fromabout one-half inch for the pejerreyera to 231 inchesfor the tortuguera. (Mesh sizes are often specifiedby dedos [fingers], that is, the number of fingers thatcan be fitted parallel in a stretched mesh [see alsoFiedler, 1943:51; Schweigger, 1943:257].) Since netpanels are often of a standard size by number of in-cluded meshes (e.g., 50 x 100 mesh), the panels ofthese different nets may differ in gross size as well.Additionally, nets may contain different numbers ofpanels. Standardization of net types and sizes is prob-ably greater now than formerly, since many fishermen,

particularly in the larger settlements and those con-centrating on fishing for the commercial market, buytheir nets from factories in Callao, either directly orthrough an intermediary. Fishermen in smaller settle-ments still make their own gill nets, claiming that the

knots are tighter in homemade nets, but they obtainthe line (pita), corks (corchos), and lead weights(plomos) from commercial sources. Only heavier lines,such as those used for net edges (trallas), are some-times made by local persons. All fishermen do theirown repairing, using the double-pointed needle (aguja)and mesh measure (mallero, medida), as they wouldin making their own nets. The aguja is usually pur-chased, but the mallero may be homemade. In makingor repairing nets, fishermen usually hold the net withthe left hand, the aguja with the right, and keep thenet taut with the toes of one foot (see also Gillin,1947:33).

Homemade redes are not all constructed in thesame way, but a fairly common type was observed indetail in Laguna Grande and will be described here.(fig. 1). The panels (tallos) of the net are 100 x 50mesh (mallas) and are laced together at their commonedges with a line (perfil) to make the whole net, which,in the example illustrated here, was 10 tallos long andtwo tallos high, or 100 x 1,000 mallas. The panelsare attached to an upper and lower rope of half-inchdiameter called trallas (cf. Gillin, 1947:33, tayas).That at the top is called the tralla de corcho (corkline) and that at the bottom the tralla de plomo (sinker,or lead line). Each side of the net is bordered by a

line called the tralla de alto. Often the four trallasare composed of a single rope which encircles the net,but the sections of the rope are named as indicated.The malla (meaning, in this case, the netted fabricitself) is attached to the trallas in the following fashion:A light line (heavier than the pita but lighter than thetralla), called el encale, is attached to the trallas in

a looping fashion with a clove hitch (ballestrinque) or

a variant of a clove hitch in which the two round turns

are crossed (ballestrinque doble, amarre de encale),and the encale sags slightly between the knots whichfasten it to the tralla. The space between the amarres

de encale is called encala, but varies according to thetralla to which the enc ale is attached. On the trallasde corcho and de plomo the distance is equivalent to

that between two and one-half knots of stretched mallaand is called dos y media; in fastening the encale to

the tralla, fishermen stretch the malla, closing themesh, and mark off two and one-half closed meshesto place the amarres de encale. On the trallas de alto,the amarres de encale are placed every three closedmeshes. The malla is then laced to the encalles withanother line (perfil) which runs once through eachseparate malla and alternately two and three timesthrough each encale. Corchos are attached to the trallade corcho at the rate of eight per tallo, each beingthree encalas distant from the next, not counting theencala in which it is located. Plomos are crimpedto the tralla de plomo seven encalas distant fromone another, again not counting the encala in whichthey are placed. A gourd float, usually called boya

[ 214 1


enacaZaII

cohrAotraota de/ corco

pZt

hcya

Fig. 1. Red de cortina.

(alts., mate, por6n), is attached to the tralla de cor-cho at each end of the net to mark its extremities(Gillin, 1947:33, reports chuno). If the net is to beused near the surface (flotante, de sobre agua), a

large stone (cal6n) is attached at each extremity ofthe tralla de plomo; if it is to be sunken (de fondo),a cal6n is attached also under each tallo of the net.Calones and boyas are usually attached to the trallasby whipping a loop or tying an overhead knot in thebight of the trallas at the corners of the net; theseloops are called orejas (ears), and the cal6n or boyais attached to the oreja by another line.

As noted, nets at the same or at other coastalpoints may differ in detail. For example, in theSechura area the trallas are called orillas, and no

perfi is used to lace them to the malla, the enc alepassing alternately through one and two meshes ofthe net. Further, there are no trallas de alto, butthe last cord of the malla at the ends of the net isdoubled to give it extra strength. Five encalas .Are

used between corchos, and other details also vary.

(Some apparent terminological differences betweenthese data and those of the Moche-Huanchaco area

have been noted above; for further details see Gillin,1947.)

One further variant of the red de cortina was ob-served at Puerto Pizarro-a large, usually single-panelnet, made of heavy line. This type is called la rel(from la red) and is not a true gill net but a barriernet which is suspended from shoreline poles across

tidal inlets or small streams at the flood so that thefish will be trapped against it at the ebb and can bespeared or taken from a canoe with a dip net. Thekind of coast necessary for the use of la rel is sel-dom found outside the drowned shoreline area near

the gulf of Guayaquil. The same fishing technique, andoccasionally the 'term, rel, are found at points to thenorth on the Ecuadorean coast (C. Edwards, personalcommunication). In this, as in other aspects of culture,Puerto Pizarro shows itself to be closer to the Ecua-dorean than to the main Peruvian area. Interestingly,Fiedler (1943:153) does not report la rel from PuertoPizarro, asserting that only atarrayas (throw nets)were used; la rel may thus be a recent adoption.

Another net type based on the red de cortina is thetrammel (trasmallo). The Mediterranean prototype andreported Peruvian examples are made of three parallelnet panels (Foster, 1960:80; Schweigger, 1943:258; Coker,1910:345, using an alternate term, red de tres painos).This circumstance leads Foster (loc. cit.) to suggest

dealto

Red de Cortina

10 C. j~ 'I

215


an etymology of trasmallo < tres malla (three nets);an alternate etymology, in view of the way the netfunctions (see below), is trasmallo < tras malla(through the net), with tras < Lat. trans. The tras-mallos described to the investigators on this surveyhad only two parallel panels, one taut and of largemesh, the other looser and of finer weave. The netwas placed so that the fine-meshed panel faced thedirection from which the fish were expected. As theyswam into the net, they forced the fine panel throughthe coarse one and were entangled (embolsado) in thesacks so formed. Edwards, however, saw a three-panel trasmallo on the coast in 1958 (personal com-munication); this, the Iberian, and the previously re-ported Peruvian types have the advantage over thetwo-panel net of being two-directional. The trasmallois reported by Coker (1910:345) as being of Europeanintroduction and of restricted distribution. Fiedler(1943:51) similarly notes it as a recent Europeanintroduction, but reports it as common. This surveyindicated that the trasmallo was currently of fairlywide distribution, but nevertheless relatively rare inthe sense that few examples exist in any one placeand that they are not commonly used.

Other than the gill net, the only common net typeis a genus of haul nets referred to by the term chin-chorro (chinchorro de la playa, Schweigger, 1943:258).(None of the other terms used in Spain for haul netswere encountered on this survey.) Chinchorros are

very much limited in their usefulness by surf andshore conditions, that is, they must be shot in fairlycalm water. Since shoreline without heavy groundswell or breakers is rare in Peru, these nets areless common than the red de cortina. This situationis particularly evident on the exposed southern coast;for example, fishermen from the large community ofSan Andres can use chinchorros only at a single beach,Mendieta. Generally speaking, the chinchorro is not acommercial net but is used most heavily by subsis-tence fishermen or occasionally by small commercialoperators fishing for the fresh or dried fish market.As the intensity of commercial exploitation increases,the red de cortina becomes more common and is it-self eventually replaced by other kinds of nets forvery large-scale operations (e.g., purse seines, haulseines, tuna traps).

Basically, the chinchorro consists of a net sackbordered by two long wings. The net is shot offshorefrom some kind of craft or walked out in shallowwaters, the wings are spread, and the whole apparatusis drawn to shore by ropes, the gradual closure ofthe wings and passage of the net through the watertrapping the fish in the sack. Often one end of thenet is left on shore (dejar la punta), and the other iscarried out and eventually returned. Chinchorros are

usually hauled by gangs of men and boys, but donkeysare sometimes used in addition. Small chinchorroscan be handled by two mer. The process of haulingis apparently called calar a tierra (not halar [jalar])or la cala. If boats are used, one usually follows thesack to shore, guiding the haulers by indicating theposition of any school of fish and eventually frighten-ing off the sea birds when the sack reaches shallowwater.

A typical chinchorro observed at Constante (fig. 2)was constructed as follows: The wings (alares) were

made of two longitudinal panels (pa-nos, cf. tallo on

the red de cortina), each 33 mallas high and 35 arm-

lengths (brazadas) long (brazada here was defined as

a half-fathom; it can also mean a full-fathom). Thepanels were lashed together along their common edgeby a light line (cosedura; the term perfil was notused). The outer ends of the wings were attached tovertical sticks called calones (cf. cal6n, rock weighton the red de cortina); these serve to keep the edgesof the alares taut when a strain is taken on the haul-ing ropes (alts., vetas, caloneras, cabos) which areattached to each calon by a rope sling. The alares inthe Constante net were separated from the sack by anextra piece called a cuchilla (cf. Foster, 1960:85, cu-chillo), a leaf-shaped piece of netting made by re-ducing the number of mesh in successive rows awayfrom the center of the piece. At the upper edge ofeach alar, where the alar joins the sack, the cuchillawas two to three meshes wide; at the lower edge ofeach alar, that is, near its own center, it was 70meshes wide. The function of the cuchilla is to tipthe sack up when a horizontal strain is taken on thealares, so that the sack will not drag excessively onthe bottom. Both sack and alares were attached (toopposite sides) of the cuchilla with a cosedura. Thesack itself (copo or copa) was approximately twometers high (i.e., of the same diameter as the alareswere high) and 15 arm-lengths long, and was formedof six longitudinal panels of netting, three above andthree below, sewn together with coseduras and closedat the rear by another cosedura which was pulled outto release the fish when the net reached shore. Thefirst 7 0 malla of the bottom three panels were madeof heavier line than the rest of the net, since thatportion of the copa tends to wear somewhat more be-cause of being hauled over the bottom, despite theaction of the cuchilla. (Interestingly, the cuchilla wasnot made of heavier cord, although it rubs over thebottom more than any other part of the net.) The up-per rope to which the net was attached (orilla de ar-riba; cf. the use of orilla as an alternate to tralla onthe red de cortina in this area) ran from one cal6nalong the top of one alar, across the top of the frontof the copa, and down the other alar to the othercalon. The orilla de abajo (bottom rope) was simi-larly placed on the lower edge of the alar, passingalong the front of the cuchilla. Corchos were attachedto the orilla de arriba and plomos to the orilla deabajo. A gourd float (punta) was attached by a lightline to the rear of the copa to mark its position inthe water. In laying the net with one end fixed toshore or in a boat, and allowing the free end to floator to be swum to shore, the free end is marked withanother gourd (chuna; cf. Gillin, 1947:29, chuno).

A somewhat different type of chinchorro was ob-served at Callao. This one, although similar in over-all form and method of use, was made of verticalpanels, both in the alares and the sack (here calledsaco). The alares, each 35 arm-lengths long, weremade of three panels with differing mesh sizes, themesh of the outermost panel being large (malla clara),that of the middle panel intermediate, and that of thepanel next to the saco most closely woven. (Schweigger,1943:258-259, reports a similar differentiation of wingpanels, with bandas of open and espesos of closermesh.) There was no cuchilla, and the alares weresewn directly to the saco of four vertical panels bya cosedura. The four panels of the saco were joinedat the bottom of the net, as well as at their commonedges, by coseduras, and closed by another coseduraat the rear. The saco was six arm-lengths long andfour wide when flattened. In its arrangement of panels,

216


C. 2 0

punta

copa

Constante

CaUao

C1hinchorros

Fig. 2. Chinchorros

differing mesh sizes in the alares, and lack of thecuchilla, the Callao net is closest to the Spanish forms,for example, the jabega from Conil de la Frontera illus-trated by Foster (1960: fig. 2).

Similar in form to the chinchorro but different inusage is the arrastra or chinchorro de arrastre(called chinchorro by Schweigger, 1943:258, distinguish-ing it from the chinchorro de la playa); this is a dragnet usually hauled from a sailing vessel. The exampleseen had alares 20 feet long, a symmetrical inter-mediate section of malla clara seven feet long, anda saco 12 feet long. The arrastra was encounteredon this survey only in the Supe-Chiclayo zone, andthen rarely. Schweigger (1943:258), however, reportsa large form which was probably similar to it (lam-paro), and Fiedler (1943:53) and Coker (1910:342, 346)describe a modified chinchorro with a funnellike mouth,hauled by two vessels (anchovetera, the term still em-ployed at Puerto Chico). Cobo (1956, II:269) reportsthe use of a haul seine between two vessels in thecolonial period. Although Cobo's evidence indicatesthe early presence of the type, it seems to be em-ployed now largely in major commercial enterprises,as are the boliche (purse seine) and trampa (trap,analogous to the Spanish almadraba). Some of theselarge nets, particularly the tuna traps, seem to berecent introductions from North America, sometimes

via Japan (see Ancieta C., 1952:9-12; Schweigger,1943:268-269). A similar term, arrastre, is appliedon the southern coast to a small net made of chainlink fencing, wire, and rope, which is used in con-junction with a drag rake, winch, and power launchin commercial mussel fishing.

The throw or cast net (atarraya, alt., tarrayo) isrelatively rare except for subsistence fishing. Thisis a circular net, woven with a regular reductiontechnique to form a loose disc of netting. The speci-mens observed were about five feet in diameter, withlead weights along the circumference and a singleline from the center of the net which is held by thefishermen. The net is cast in shallow, calm waterby a wading man, allowed to settle to the bottom,and then slowly drawn in. As the center of the netlifts from the bottom, the lead weights draw together,trapping the fish in the folds of the net. (See alsoStevenson, 1829, II:19-20; Fiedler, 1943:56-57, andCoker, 1910: P1. 13, fig. 4 for an illustration). Theform reported by Foster for Spain (1960:81), withlines attached to the circumference and passingthrough an iron ring at the center, that reported bySchweigger (1943: 256), with a drawstring, and thatby Gillin (1947: 29), with a slit and two ropes, were

not observed. It is likely that atarrayas, which are

probably all homemade, vary widely in details of

217


construction. Schweigger (1943:258) suggests that theatarraya may have been used aboriginally. The term,of course, is of Spanish origin. There are no archae-ological specimens of the net type, and although it iswidely used by primitive peoples in one form or an-other, it is quite common in Iberia as well (see Rod-riguez Santamaria, 1927:436 ff., figs. 367, 514 for de-scriptions of the tarrayo and esparavel).

The only other net type encountered was the handleddip net (alts., carcal carcalillo, chipo, yuco). The netis roughly circular, made with a reduction techniquelike the atarraya, and is crudely lashed to an arc ofwillow closed by a piece of rope or wire; the willowarc is mounted on a long wooden handle. The dip netis used for taking trapped fish, crustaceans (see alsoRuschenberger, 1834:360, commenting on Huarmey), orsmall fish which have been stunned by dynamite in acommon bait-fishing technique. The two-handled dipnet (cahuan) reported by Gillin (1947:28) was not ob-served. (See Rodriguez Santamaria, 1927:204 ff., figs.214, 308, and pp. 703 ff. for discussion and illustrationof Spanish types, e.g., the camaronera for takingshrimp, cuchara, salabre, and others.)

TRAPS

The fresh-water shrimp (camar6n del rio) traps(nasas) reported by Gillin (1947:29) were not observeddirectly on this survey in the Ica-Pizarro zone. In-formants were generally familiar with the idea ofsuch traps but said that they were rarely used, sincecamaron fishing had declined markedly in recent years.The same trap was reported to be still in use on theMoche and Majes rivers and was seen in use just up-stream from the mouth of the Oconia River in 1958,and in the Rimac and Ambar (Supe) rivers in 1953.(See Hartman, 1958, for some illustrations of Peru-vian types and Rodriguez Santamaria, 1927:546 ff. forSpanish examples close to the Peruvian ones.) Crabtraps (cangrejeros) similar to that reported by Gillin(saca, 1947:35-36) were reported at scattered pointsalong the coast; these are simple net baskets, baitedand lowered to the bottom.

HOOK-AND-LINE FISHING

Several methods of hook-and-line fishing are em-ployed along the coast, particularly in more conserva-tive settlements. Both archaeological and colonialdocumentary evidence attest the use of hook and linein aboriginal times (Means, 1942:figs. 2, 3; Garcilaso,1945:166; Cobo, 1956, I:305, I1:269) and evidence fortheir continued use is given in later documents aswell (e.g., Hutchinson, 1873: 218). Schweigger (1943:255) suggests that no other means of taking fish wasemployed in the Sechura zone, an area in which netsare now used in addition to hook and line but wherehook-and-line fishing may still be the most populartechnique (e.g., at Matacaballo). We are suspicious ofthe accuracy of Schweigger's observation in the abso-lute form given, but at least it points up the greateruse of gill nets for modern commercial fishing andof hook and line, chinchorros, and atarrayas for con-servative commercial or subsistence fishing.

The commonest hook-and-line method employs thecordel (line), which consists of a simple length offishing twine, usually wound on a short stick or board,

one or more commercial hooks (anzuelos) attached bya line or wire leader at one end, and a lead sinkerabove the hook(s). The hooks are baited with part ofan anchovy or other small fish or with muymuy, soft-shelled crab, or other small crustacean, and are sus-pended from boats or pier sides. (Cobo, 1956, I: 305,reports the use of caballa [mackerel] for bait in co-lonial times.) More rarely, cordeles are used fromthe beach. The use of fishing poles is restricted tosport fishermen. Although the cordel seems inefficientfor even light commercial fishing, experience on thesurvey demonstrates that three men with two cordeleseach can literally fill a twenty two-foot open boat withmackerel in the course of a night's fishing. Fish socaught are usually killed by clubbing (Coker, 1910:342)or by pressing the thumbnail into the head; fish caughtin nets are usually left to suffocate.

The espinel is a trawl line of varying length. Ifone end is attached to shore, the other is cast out tosea from the beach or carried out in a small craft.Alternatively, one end may be attached to a boat, theother dropped, and the line extended by rowing away.Espineles are sometimes tended (as in the latter ex-ample) and sometimes left overnight (as when theyare cast out from shore). Espineles are somewhatless common than cordeles, perhaps because of theproblem of acquiring bait for so many hooks, as manyas 1,500 of which may be attached to the master line.Espineles are most commonly employed in the takingof bottom-feeding fish s, particularly congrio (cusk eel).

The trampilla (alt., robadera) is not a trap as itsname might suggest, but a snag line. Made somewhatlike a cordel, but with multiple hooks which may begang hooks, it is cast into a school of fish and jerkedback sharply in the hope of snagging some of the fish.(See also Murphy, 1925: 219-220.) Trampillas are ratherrare.

Lures, generally known as muestras (southern alt.,chispa), are used occasionally from boats in still-fishing for schooling fish and sometimes in trolling(a carrera). rhey are usually purchased in Callao andconsist of a barbless hook with a bundle of feathersattached. Cobo (1956, I:305) noted the use of a lureconsisting of white cloth attached to a hook in mack-erel and bonito fishing in the early colonial period.Spinners (properly called chispas) are also employedin trolling.

SPEARS, GAFFS, ANDMISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS

The commonest implement in this residual categoryis the gancho, a handled gaff of general coastal distri-bution, about two feet long, which is used by men fortaking octopus (pulpo). (Women usually take pulpo byhand and kill the animals by biting them in the head.)Harpoons and two-pronged fish spears are also of widedistribution but relatively little used except in subsis-tence fishing; a similar situation seems to be charac-teristic of the colonial period (Gutierrez de SantaClara, 1905:528, 530, in night fishing with torches; Cobo,1956, I: 292, 305; Garcilaso, 1945: 166, describing fish-gigs, or fisgas) and later (Tschudi, 1847:39; Uhle, 1906:3-4). Along most of the coast today the spears areused for taking flatfish, turtles, and rays; at PuertoPizarro (and at Ma.ncora on an intensive commercialbasis) harpoons are used in taking shark. (Fiedler,1943:153, does not report this practice; thus, it may

218


be a recent development.) Both the spear and the har-poon have metal points and are referred to as harp6n.Fire-hardened spears were apparently also used inthe sixteenth century (Guti6rrez de Santa Clara, 1905:528). Another common article is the volador, a woodenplunger which is driven vertically into the water tofrighten fish into nets (see also Fiedler, 1943:52).Large gourds are used, particularly by more conserva-tive fishermen, to hold their gear and food; espineles,for example, are carefully coiled in large gourds withthe hooks set into the edge to avoid tangling.

WATER CRAFT4

It is in vessel types and their management that onefinds the clearest evidence of aboriginal techniques andimplements. Three types of ancient craft are still fair-ly numerous on the coast, although some are of re-stricted distribution: several subtypes of dugout canoe(canoa), of the balsawood raft (balsa), and of the reedfloat (caballito del mar). (The term, balsa, in its gen-eral sense of any raft, was also applied to reed floatson the coast in colonial times.) No trace was found ofthe inflated skin floats which may have been used inthe Nasca culture (L. Dawson, personal communication)and which were reported by Europeans on the southerncoast in colonial and later times (Acosta, 1894, I:236,commenting on Ica ca. 1590; Porter, 1822, I:97; Cobo,1956, II: 266, commenting on Arica; Hall, 1824, I:203,commenting on Mollendo; Ruschenberger, 1834:153-154,165-166, 339, commenting on Coquimbo, Cobija, andArica; Shelvocke, 1726:169, 273, commenting on Aricaand Pisagua; Coker, 1910:343, commenting on Mol-lendo). Fiedler (1943:38) saw none of these, but theywere noted on the Chilean coast as late as the 1940'sby F. Cornely (personal communication to C. Edwards).(See also Means, 1942; Lothrop, 1932.)

Canoes were formerly found as far south as Pucu-sana (south of Lima), although their southern occur-rences were rare and discontinuous, but they are nowrestricted to the Puerto Pizarro area. There they areof at least two types, a smaller one about 20 feet longand I1 or 2 feet from bottom to gunwale, hollowed outof a single tree trunk, and a large one, somewhatlonger but differing principally in the greater free-board created by adding a long plank (washboard) atthe gunwale on each side (see also Murphy, 1925 216;Tschudi, 1847:147; Lothrop, 1932:229 ff.). Balance logswere not observed (see Lothrop, 1932:230-231, P1.XVa). Both types of canoe are imported from Ecuador,the smaller costing about 1,000 soles and the largerabout 1,500 soles ($1.00 U. S. = c. 20 soles at th-etime of the survey). Both types of canoe are used inharpooning sharks. There is a platformlike extensionat the prow or at the prow and stern of the canoe; atleast that at the prow is pierced by a small hole, ap-parently for the attachment of a painter (Lothrop,1932:230) or of a harpoon line (see below). The har-pooner stands on the platform to throw his weapon,the head of which is attached by a long line tiedthrough the hole. The harpooned shark, sometimesreaching 30 feet in length, pulls the canoe through the

4We are particularly indebted to Clinton R. Edwards, not onlyfor his comments on drafts of this paper, but also for allowingus the use of materials independently gathered by him in 1958;readers interested in details of boat types and navigation are re-ferred to Edwards, 1960, and his manuscript in preparation.

water until exhausted, and is then dispatched. Some-times the harpoon line is attached to a barrel or steeldrum in addition to the boat or to the drum alone. Ineither case, the float tends to tire the shark and laterserves as a marker, even if fish and tackle have beencast adrift. (The prow and stern platforms on thecanoes have other functional as well as distributionalimplications in Ecuador-C. Edwards, MS, personalcommunication.) The harpooning of fish and turtles isalso known from the colonial period and is probablyan aboriginal trait (Garcilaso, 1945: 166; Cobo, 1956,I: 292).

Canoes are propelled by a paddle or sail, as theyevidently were in aboriginal times (Cobo, 1956, II:265).Paddlers usually sit in the stern if alone; if there aretwo, one is at either end of the vessel. A mast stepis often found in the bottom of the canoe, about at itscenter point. The mast is a simple pole, supportedby mast partners and guyed by stays running fore andaft; it bears a simple triangular sail, without gaff.(See Edwards, 1960:385-386; no composite masts wereobserved.) The sail is similar to that described byEdwards for Manabi, although lacking gaff and boom,and is thus similar to that pictured by Spilbergen(Edwards, 1960: fig. 4). Fiedler (1943: 39) reports whatmay be a lugsail on canoes, although it seems an extra-ordinarily clumsy rig for that hull.

Balsas are of several types. Some are crude affairsof a few logs lashed together and often serve as liferafts on sailing boats or for the laying of haul or gillnets a short distance offshore. Others are somewhatmore finely shaped, with some taper at the prow. Suchrafts are propelled by paddling, either with the handsor with a simple paddle made of wood or of a splitpiece of Guayaquil cane (see also Garcilaso, 1945:165-166). One paddle noted at Huanchaquito was double-ended, with a cane loom and boxwood blades; for evi-dence bearing on the aboriginal use of the double pad-dle and its continuance in later times, see Cobo, 1956,II: 266; Hall, 1824, : 203; Frezier's drawing in Lothrop,1932: Pl. XXa; Raimondi, 1942, : 187; Shelvocke, 1726:273; Ruschenberger, 1834:153-154. The more elaboratebalsas are propelled by a lugsail (vela latina) and steeredby centerboards. The construction and operation ofsailing balsas, a's well as their probable history, havebeen adequately treated by Edwards (1960), and nofurther details will be given here.

All the balsawood employed in the construction ofthese rafts comes from Ecuador, usually commercially,although some is picked up as driftwood along the coastwhere it is deposited by occasional anomalous currentscountering the Humboldt. The source of the wood maybe the principal factor in the restricted northern dis-tribution of balsas, which were never found south ofAnc6n in the recent past and are now found in theirmore elaborate form only from Sechura north. (Theywere, however, observed in Callao in the seventeenthcentury; see Edwards, 1960:374.) Recent severe re-strictions on commercial shipments between Peruand Ecuador may also be a factor in the restricteddistribution of balsas and perhaps in the disappearanceof the larger varieties which are known to have beenin use at least into the first quarter of this century(Murphy, 1925: 39, 216; Coker, 1910:343).

The caballitos (alt., potrillos, in Stevenson, 1829,II: 19) may well be the most ancient general form ofwater craft still extant in Peru; they are illustratedon ancient pottery of the Early Intermediate Period(ca. A.D. 150-800; see Lothrop, 1932: Pl.XVIII), were

2 19


v-'I

M_.I 2 n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I.jiL,I

Cabaiitos del Afar

Asia

7se- 0

hzaco

San A

Fig. 3. i2aballitos del mar.

reported by early travelers (Acosta, 1894, I: 235-236,speaking of Callao ca. 1590; Cobo, 1956, II: 265), andhave a wide modern distribution. Parallel forms (calledbalsas) occur on Lake Titicaca. Generally speaking,there are three varieties of caballito (see fig. 3)-anorthern, pointed one made of two bundles of reed witha cockpit (caja) at the after end (see also Raimondi,1942, I: 186; Ruschenberger, 1834:379-380), a southern,square-ended one of three bundles without a cockpit,and a rare intermediate form of three bundles, tapered,but without a cockpit. The two-bundle northern varietywas found in this survey from the Chiclayo to the Viruiarea, the southern from Chimbote to Caballos (nearNasca), and the intermediate form at San Jose, on theboundary between the other two areas. Caballitos were

not found in the primary area of balsas (Sechura andnorth), but their ranges overlap between Viru' and Huan-chaco. At Asia, on the south-central coast, two subtypesof the southern caballito are distinguished-a larger,called balsa, for carrying the chinchorro, and a smaller,called patache, for carrying the hauling ropes.

There are several types of plank craft found alongthe coast, all made by professional shipwrights and

clearly of European derivation. In general, the boatsof the Ica-Pisco region (chalanas, embarcaciones) are

open, with a transom of wineglass section, and about22 feet long, powered by a 12 H.P. Swedish outboardengine and a sail for emergencies (by governmentregulation). Sails were formerly used as the primemeans of power. The boats now cost about 4,500 solesfor the hull and 12,000 for the engine. Outboards dis-appear and the frequency of inboard motors and deckedhulls increases as one moves northward along the coastand commercial fishing grows in intensity; such vessels(lanchas) become common at Pucusana. They have a

hull costing about 25,000 soles and a 25 H. P. enginecosting 50,000 soles. The incidence of inboard-poweredvessels begins to decrease sharply in the Chiclayoregion, where lugsails (velas latinas) are used in addi-tion to motors on a sailboat hull (decked, as is thelancha hull, but with a more bluff counter, or double-ended, like a felucca hull). North of Chiclayo, exceptfor factory ships and large-scale shark hunters, motorsare not found, having been replaced by lugsails on thesailboat hulls (bote de vela). Felucca hulls, once quitepopular in Peru and still found in large numbers in

C. 15 '-O I-idd

220


Chile (Edwards, personal communication), are rela-tively rare. The standard bluff-countered sailboat hullmay be derived from the balandra or balandrita (sloop)which was common on the Peruvian coast in the early1900's (Fiedler, 1943:43). Only one other type of largevessel was reported by informants-a two-masted ves-sel with three sails (bergantin) used around Pisco be-fore 1950 (fig. 4). (For details of hull and sail typesin earlier years of this century, see Coker, 1910 andFiedler, 1943; C. Edwards is preparing an independentanalysis of these materials from data gathered by himin 1958 [Edwards, MS].)

Ao& de WtaPi-sco

14 -- c. 30O-0i1

Fig. 4. Bote de vela (Pisco).

Small vessels of plank construction, used princi-pally for harbor work, inshore fishing, and minorlightering are common along the coast. These are

usually referred to as zapato, zapato chalana, chalana,or zapato chino; there is, unfortunately, no apparentconsistency between the terms and types of construc-tion over the coast as a whole. The zapato chalanaat Cerro Azul and a few other nearby points is a

relatively rare, square-ended dory, prized for itsability to negotiate heavy surf (fig. 5).

KNOTS AND SPLICES

The relatively small technical inventory of the con-

servative Peruvian fisherman is well illustrated in thearea of knots and splices, and is probably in part a

Zapato ChalanaCerro Azut

14 ~~~-C. 12-0- 1-

Fig. 5. Zapato chalana (Cerro Azul).

function of the present lack of emphasis on complicatedrigging and sailing equipment. Subsistence fishermenare usually familiar only with the netting knots, thesquare knot, and perhaps two half-hitches. The menin the Sechura area, who are accomplished sailors(reported to round the Galapagos and the Lobosde Afuera by dead reckoning; see also Schweigger,1943: 254, and Coker, 1910: 343), and who often servein the Peruvian Navy, furnished the most completelist of knots and tied examples: adeguia (bowline),adeguia por ceno (bowline on a bight), nudo de balsaespaniol (Spanish bowline), adeguia triple (triple bow-line), cabilla (two half-hitches), nudo simple (squareknot or granny), nudo de union (square knot, girthhitch, or sheet bend), nudo de malla and nudo de lared (two different netting knots), ballestrinque (clovehitch), ballestrinque doble or amarre de encale (clovehitch with the two round turns crossed). The men atLaguna Grande were familiar with all these knotswhen they were tied for them, but they could not re-produce them all and did not know all of them byname. In addition, they used a round turn and two-half-hitches, as well as a double or triple becketbend (the latter for tying nylon fishing lines). Standardbarrel knots are used for tying leaders to hooks.Splices are rarely found; only the eye splice ap-proaches being common, and then only among com-mercial fishermen. Only former sailors know some-thing of the short splice, although most fishermenwere aware that ropes could be so joined. No inform-ant had ever seen a long splice, despite the fact thatlines must be rove through blocks in operating thevela latina on sailing boats and balsas.

221

ROLE DIFFERENTIATION AND ECONOMIC ARRANGEMENTS

MANUFACTURE OF EQUIPMENT

Some remarks on the manufacture of craft and tacklehave already been made above, but these may well beamplified here. Local and personal manufacture of arti-facts is greatest in the smaller, poorer, and more con-servative villages, and the material equipment in theseplaces is simpler. The more deeply a fisherman is in-volved in large-scale commercial fishing the less likelyhe is to make his own equipment.

Nets, as noted above, are sometimes made locally,but the mesh line, corks, and lead weights are alwayspurchased. (At the very conservative settlement at Puer-to Moorin, gourds were even substituted for cork floats.)The arroba (25 lbs.) of line needed for a corbinera offour-and-one-half-inch mesh costs about 500 soles, andthe entire net about 900 soles, if made at home. Whenpurchased, such a net would cost about twice as much.Factory-made nets are made in Callao and often pur-chased direct from the manufacturer; Schweigger (1943:330) states that all nets purchased in Callao before thesecond World War were imported from Italy, but we haveno confirmation of that report. It suggests, however, asdo other data, that the influence of Italian fishing prac-tices on Peru may have been very great. Heavy linesmay be twisted locally with a simple, rotating twistingpaddle, but the fiber for them is always purchased.Gourd floats are home grown and made, and the toolsfor making and repairing nets may be homemade. Linefor cordeles and similar tackle is always purchased, asare hooks and lead sinkers.

* Plank watercraft are never made by local fishermenbut always by professional shipwrights located in themajor coastal towns. Canoes are imported ready-madefrom Ecuador, although the local fishermen at PuertoPizarro make and emplace their own temporary masts.The wood for balsas is also imported, but the rafts aremade by local fishermen. Only the totora reed for cabal-litos is an indigenous raw material, and most fisher-men using these craft make them themselves, althoughthey usually purchase the reed. Sails, as far as couldbe determined, were locally sewn only at Puerto Pizarro,where they were made of flour sacks. In all other settle-ments they were of canvas and were obtained commer-cially. (Cf. Gillin, 1947: 33, and Raimondi, 1942, I: 87,who reports sailmaking out of locally available fiber inthe Republican period.)

MARKETING

Fishermen who work principally for their own subsis-tence sometimes sell fish at a local dock or along theside of a highway, when opportunity permits. Those whofish principally for the market have some regular arrange-ment for getting the fish to their customers. in someareas, the fishermen's wives and female kin claim thecatch as soon as it reaches the shore, or take it on con-

signment, then transport it by foot, burro, or vehicle to

a local market place. The role of women in commercialoperations may be more intense on the southern than on

the northern coast (C. Edwards, personal communication).

Fish buyers sometimes come to the docks or beaches andpurchase the fish from the fishermen, transporting thecargo to distant markets by truck. It is said that the Chi-nese of the coast are particularly active as fish buyers.Some fishermen have their own trucks and transport theircatch to market, where their wives and other female rela-tives sell it, either to local vendors, over a counter atthe market, or from the parked truck. In Laguna Grande,the fishermen are often linked by friendship, kinship, orcompadrazgo to several wealthy men of Comatrana whoown trucks, handle all commercial arrangements, andsometimes advance money for capital improvement.

PROFIT SHARING

Methods of allocating the profits from the catch or thecatch itself vary widely in detail but are similar in thegeneral practice of division by shares. In simpler meth-ods of fishing, as when two men related by kinship useonly a chinchorro, walking into the surf, and when thecatch is consumed jointly by their dependents, no formalsystem of division prevails. If one man has clear title tothe net, the catch may be divided one-third for the netand one-third for each man; thus, the owner of the netreceives two-thirds of the catch. If a plank boat is used,one part of the catch is reserved for it; a share is onlyrarely reserved for a balsa, never for a caballito. Ashare may also be reserved for the motor. Since fisher-men cooperating in joint expeditions often bring their own

nets (or at least the panels to be joined together) sharesneed not always be reserved for the nets. Sometimes theshares due the boat and/or motor are deducted separate-ly from the catch in each net, which is kept separate or

marked for the owner of the particular net (or panel).Costs of operation (e.g., for gasoline) are usually de-ducted before shares are calculated, and the shares mayvary in size at different points on the coast. Generally,the share for boat and motor combined comes to between30 and 50 per cent of the total catch.

SEXUAL DIVISION OF LABOR

As implied above, the sale of fish is the exclusiveprovince of women, except in commercial operationsof great volume and complexity. Women do not parti-cipate in the fishing itself, except to gather some

shellfish, octopus, and seaweed from the rocks, usu-

ally without tools. On rare occasions women and chil-dren help with the mending of nets and may alsomanufacture ropes. The cleaning, drying, and occa-

sional salting of fish is attended to by both men andwomen. All the household chores except those involv-ing heavy labor, as in house construction, are handledby the women. Although the men's predominance ingainful activity gives them some authority over the

women, that authority is far from absolute. Womenwere observed, in general, to have a strong, and fre-quently exercised, veto power over their husbands'intended actions and sometimes to initiate actionthemselves.

[ 222 1

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The data surveyed in this report suggest that theprocesses of technological and social change in coastalPeruvian fishing over several centuries are obscurebecause of the relative lack of accurately dated anddetailed information and that their analysis would becomplex even if the requisite information were avail-able. Some relatively simple explanations can be of-fered, but we must not be misled by the paucity ofthe data into thinking that such explanations are totalones; rather, they should be regarded as possible com-ponents of an intricate historical pattern. In the para-graphs to follow we will consider problems of persis-tence and selective borrowing, taking note of the pos-sible role of technological and economic efficiency, thefunctional interrelationship of different economic com-plexes, role and prestige relationships, and the con-cept of culture crystallization-that is, of an initialstabilization of an acculturative situation which inhibitsfurther change (Foster, 1960:227-234).

Although fishing has a respectable antiquity in Peruand although the old pattern of farmer-fisher relation-ships and of some isolated subsistence fishermen per-sists in places, increasing commercialization and Euro-pean influences have markedly changed the total char-acter of Peruvian fishing and navigational techniques.Little of the specific aboriginal technical inventoryseems to have survived. Although some nets seem tohave been used by the native inhabitants, all thoseused today have clear Spanish prototypes and names.The chinchorro, perhaps without a sack, may havebeen employed aboriginally (see Gillin, 1947: 29; Fied-ler, 1943:38; Edwards, 1960:fig.4, and particularlyGuti6rrez de Santa Clara, 1905: 528-530, noting "redeslargas" and "mantas grandes," used sometimes at seaand sometimes in "fish drives" at the shore), as thethrow net may have been, but we have no evidencefor the latter other than Schweigger's assertion (1943:257). Acosta may be referring to gill nets in his am-biguous comments at the close of the sixteenth century(1894, I: 235); see also Fiedler, 1943: 38. The shrimptrap may also be an aboriginal form, although, asnoted, clear Spanish prototypes for these artifactsexist as well. (One cannot, of course, ignore the pos-sibility that diffusion occurred in the other direction,but it seems less likely.) Knots and splices, as wellas spears and gaffs also have clear European proto-types, although some kind of fish spear was usedaboriginally (Bird, 1946, on northern Chile; Garcilaso,1945: 166; Cobo, 1956, I: 292, 305) and knots certainlywere. One aboriginal netting knot is the same as thatused on modern homemade nets (Kostritsky, 1955: figs.8, 9). The sociology of Peruvian fishing is clearly ofIberian derivation; division by shares and the predom-inance of women in economic transactions are asmarked in Spain as in Peru, and there is no evidencefor the presence of similar patterns in aboriginal times.

The retarded replacement of aboriginal watercraft,however, deserves further consideration; the hulls ofsome aboriginal watercraft, the system of centerboardnavigation, and the split cane and double paddles haveall persisted. The simplest explanation of this partialretention seems to lie in considerations of availablecapital and expenditure of labor, as well as in the

functions of various vessel types. The large craft usedfor coastal transport in late aboriginal times were built,operated, and supported by a complex socio-economicstructure. While that structure was largely destroyedby the Spanish conquest, it was replaced by another,not dissimilar in some respects, and some Spanishcoastal commerce seems to have been carried by largebalsas in the colonial period (Dampier, 1927: 102; Porter,1822, I: 123). Indeed, there is evidence of the occasionaluse of large balsas until the first quarter of this cen-tury (Murphy, 1925: 39, 216; Coker, 1910: 343; Ruschen-berger, 1834: 413; Stevenson, 1829, II: 223-225; Edwards,personal communication). Their eventual disappearance,in our view, is attributable not only to their replace-ment by more modern boat types of greater efficiencyand prestige but also to the marked decline in localcoastal commerce which has occurred all along thePeruvian coast. Balsas were useful and efficient craftin coasting operations, but now that most Peruviancommercial shipping is oriented toward foreign ports,with its internal commerce proceeding by land, thelarge balsas have lost much of their usefulness andcommercial support and have been abandoned. In short,their decline may be due not only to competitionwith other vessel types but also to competition withthe railroads and the trucking industry. The dateof disappearance of the large balsas and that ofmarked increase in mechanized land transportationare in accord with this interpretation. The disap-pearance of sealskin and balsawood rafts as lightersmay also be due, in part, to the concentration ofsea-going commerce at a few ports with advanceddocking facilities, for example, Callao (see Hammel,1962: 45).

The persistence of smaller craft can also be ex-plained, up to a point, on economic grounds. Thesimpler craft, which could be made at no great ex-pense and with family labor, were perfectly adequatefor subsistence and have persisted in use by subsis-tence fishermen. They were not adequate for commer-cial fishing, and it is precisely where fishing has be-come commercialized that one sees their decline. Thedegree of commercialization of fishing is usually re-flected in the nModernity of the fishermen's equipment;both these factors correlate, to some degree, withgeographical position. The greatest degree of com-mercialization and modernization is found on the cen-tral coast, around Lima, which has long been thecoastal point most heavily affected by outside influ-ences. The south coast (San Andr6s, Laguna Grande)follows, with the Chiclayo area third, the Sechura areafourth, and finally the scattered settlements of purelysubsistence fishermen. It is worthy of note that thisdistribution of modern elements and commercializationin fishing is in accord with the generally greater cul-tural conservatism of northern coastal Peru.

The problem of restricted adoption from the varietyof fishing techniques found in Iberia poses still anotherproblem. Why are the number of types of equipmentfound in Iberia apparently so reduced in the New World?(Rodriguez Santamaria, 1927: xiii, suggests that morethan 500 different kinds of fishing artifacts are foundin Spain.) One possible explanation immediately comes

[ 223 1


to mind, namely that the aboriginal and Spanish fish-ing complexes did not come into full contact It isnot likely that whatever Spanish fishermen came tothe New World were a representative sample, andthey could not have offered the Iberian fishing reper-toire, in all its diversity, for adoption by the Peru-vians (see also Foster, 1960:85). One should note,however, that the reduction in variability involved inthe transference of Iberian techniques to the NewWorld does not imply that the New World techniquesare uniform (cf. Foster, 1960:84). Even a surveysuch as this one indicates that there are many sub-types of gill nets, haul nets, and other artifacts, eventhough the number of major types may be less thanin Iberia. It is not impossible that the diversity ofSpanish techniques, with its long and continued region-alistic history, consists of a multiplicity of recognizedartifacts with relatively less subtypical variation, whilethe lack of differentiation of major types (as well asthe paucity of field observation) in Latin America ob-scures the internal variations that exist. Further,when commercial fishing in Latin America is takeninto account, Iberian diversity no longer looms solarge, even if one ignores some of the commercialapparatuses which have recently been introduced fromthe United States, rather than from Spain in the colo-nial period.

One might also attempt to explain the limited scopeof Latin American fishing in terms of the limited selec-tion noted, together with culture crystallization. Thedata on fishing technology, however, are not stronglyin support of such an interpretation. On the contrary,evidence in the area of vessel types indicates progres-sive adoption of European introductions from the earli-est contact to the present. A variety of hulls was in-troduced by Spanish, Italian, and North American fish-ermen during the nineteenth century-for example, thefelucca, balandra, bote de vela, and the whaleboat,-some of which have now been abandoned (Coker, 1910;Fiedler, 1943: 39 ff.; Edwards, personal communication).Documented successive adoptions of sail types supportthis same argument; square, lug, lateen, gaff, andMarconi rigs have all been reported (Gutierrez deSanta Clara, 1905: 527; Fiedler, 1943: 39 ff.; Schweigger,1943: 254; Edwards, 1960: figs. 2, 3, pp. 375, 379).

It is more difficult to comment on the processesinvolved in the diffusion and acceptance of net types,since our knowledge of the history of these forms,in both Iberia and Peru, is sketchy, but some changesin the inventory clearly occurred. The trammel maynot have been introduced to Peru until the late nine-teenth or early twentiety century; further, the cuchillain the chinchorro may be an Andean innovation, sinceit is reported from no other area (cf. Foster, 1960:85).If a chinchorro without a sack was used aboriginally,it may have persisted until about 1800 (see the draw-ing in Martinez Companon, 1936: Pl. 50). The fact thatItalians were heavily involved in the commercializationof fishing in the nineteenth century also raises the poss;-bility that some of the correspondences noted betweenPeruvian and Iberian artifacts might simple be corres-pondences between the former and implements of generalnorthern or western Mediterranean distribution. (Thefact that Spanish terms are used for artifacts does notaffect the argument; many of the modern techniques ofwine-making, for example, are of Italian introductioninto Peru but have Spanish names in spite of their origin.

Changes have certainly occurred in the technologyof line-fishing, with the adoption of modern hooks,

lures, and spinners, and line-fishing itself may havediminished in importance in some areas as a resultof commercialization and the intensified use of gillnets. Many of these changes, however, are superficialand substitutive-European steel or iron hooks replacedshell and copper hooks of the aboriginal period, pur-chased twine replaced the hand-spun cotton line ofearlier times, and so on. The same situation is truewith respect to fish spears, which, together with line-fishing, seem to represent the most conservative ele-ment in the modern Peruvian fishing repertoire.

These cautions on the application of the concept ofculture crystallization do not necessarily indicate itscomplete rejection. Other factors to be consideredare the date of this investigation and the intensity ofrecent change. Stabilization and crystallization of thefishing repertoire may well have occurred during theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the markedchanges now apparent may be due in largest part tothe influence of commercialization which was initiatedin the nineteenth century (from Italian sources) andintensified in this century (from North American andJapanese sources). Careful historical investigationmight well reveal a complicated process in which theaboriginal techniques were first influenced by Iberianones, followed by a period of stabilization, renewedinfluences and change in the nineteenth century, fol-lowed by stabilization of forms currently considered"conservative," and a later period of influence andchange over the last few decades. Thus, cultural crystal-lization, if it took place, may have been a recurrentphenomenon, although it would have been most clearlydemonstrable before 1800, a period in which fishingtechniques seem to have been extremely conservative.Certainly, it is an oversimplification to regard thetotality of modern Peruvian fishing either as a con-servative, aboriginally based complex with a fewEuropean additions, or merely as a reduced set ofIberian introductions; the processes of diffusion andacceptance have been complicated and have proceededat different rates and along different courses in theseveral subareas of the complex.

The difficulties in historical interpretation stemfrom three major sources. First, our knowledge ofthe number and distribution of currently used typesof equipment and social features is not complete, al-though information for Iberia is better than for Peru.Second, our knowledge of the history of the techno-logical inventory is faulty, often nonexistent, in mostareas. This last point is crucial in assessing thedegree of culture crystallization; Iberian technologywas certainly not static during the colonial period,and it may not be legitimate to employ informationfrom the late colonial period or from recent timesto reconstruct the early colonial situation on the basisof assumed conservatism. Similarities between LatinAmerican and Spanish technologies might well be theresult of later dissemination, either from Iberia tothe New World or from some third area to both ofthese. Third, our understanding of the processes bywhich diffusion occurred, particularly in terms of thesocial relations between the participating elements ofthe donor and recipient populations, is markedly lim-ited. Much of the technological information involvedin fishing and sailing must have passed from subordi-nate segments of Spanish society to the lower elementsof the colonial hierarchy (see also Foster, 1960; 85).On the other hand, a variety of changes, perhapslargely the later ones, may have been introduced by

224


persons of high status interested in economic reformin a general sense, or by entrepreneurs seeking tomodernize the fishing industry and make exploitationof the resources more efficient for commercial pur-poses. Ignoring these factors would be equivalent toa historical description of English agriculture whichtook account only of the basic Neolithic and BronzeAge heritage of the British Isles. We have very littleknowledge of the socio-psychological mechanisms, suchas degree of prestige emulation, which may have beeninvolved in these processes, even if within a frame-work of possibilities established by a reduced conquestculture and by whatever crystallization of the combinedinventories may have occurred.

Clearly, then, the results of this survey and itsattendant speculations can only be offered as a contri-bution to the eventual, even if partial, illumination ofthe historical processes considered. We will be grati-fied if the next ethnographer to investigate Latin Ameri-can fishing will have, as a result of our work, a betterconcept of what questions need be asked. The precisenature of these questions will, of course, differ withthe interests and theoretical orientation of the investi-gator.. For those interested primarily in historicalreconstruction from distribution and the specification

of technological detail, it will clearly be necessary toachieve a more detailed statement of material itemswith accurate provenience than was possible on ourbrief survey. Particular attention should be paid tothe degree and nature of subtypical variation in arti-fact types and to the precise specification of tasks inwhich these artifacts are employed. On a more directhistorical plane, we suggest that the archives of localcapitanias will provide much useful information, par-ticularly of a demographic nature, which may indicatethe variations in intensity with which fishing has beenpracticed over the years. Of further interest, particu-larly to the social anthropologist, would be an accuratestatement of the functioning of one or more of thesefishing communities, especially of one closely linkedwith other aspects of local economy and social life.Rural settlements on the Peruvian coast are all verymuch part-societies; some fishing communities, asnoted, are but parts of these. The description of thestructure of social relations in and between such com-munities would constitute a problem of particularinterest. If these kinds of data were available, ournotions of persistence, selection, and crystallization,and of economic advantage and functional interrelation-ship might be more incisively employed.

APPENDIX

DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME COMMUNITIES SURVEYED

The information given below covers only those com-munities on which adequate information was available.Further, the data on population and distribution of arti-facts must be employed with some caution. Populationfigures are given in three ways: the number of housesof fishermen, the number of active fishermen, or thetotal population economically dependent on fishing ina direct sense. There is some relationship betweenthese kinds of data; generally, there are about five orsix persons in a house, and often two or three of thesewill be fishermen. Nevertheless, the data are given intheir original form, with no attempt made to convertto a standard measure on the basis of these vagueequivalents. Clearly, all population figures are esti-mates and must be used with caution on that account;the most reliable figures are those on the number ofhouses, since these were often counted by the investi-gators themselves.

Information on the use or nonuse of particular arti-facts, or their presence or absence in the past in acommunity are also subject to revision. These state-ments are abstracted from the testimony of informantsgiven in short interviews with little or no opportunityto check the data from one informant against thosefrom another. Additionally, the complexity of variationin nonaboriginal boat types, the lack of a standardizedterminology for these along the coast, and the neces-sity for considerable expertise in identifying them are

such that the descriptions of water craft given are much

simplified. We refer to chalanas, meaning all small, row-boat-like craft, lanchas, meaning larger hulls, usuallyof felucca lines and with inboard engines, and botes,meaning the hull usually found bearing a lugsail in north-ern Peru. Communities are listed from south to north.

LAGUNA GRANDE. 22 houses. Total permanentpopulation is 60 persons, seasonal peak is 300. Prin-cipal techniques are the red, cordel, harpon, and chispa.Caballitos are not present; the only local boat type isthe chalana, with an outboard motor. Oars and sailare used in emergencies.

SAN ANDRES. 840 houses. Total permanent popu-lation is ca. 5,000. Principal techniques include thered, chinchorro, espinel, cordel, and harp6n. Thearrastre is used for shellfish, as are skin- and suit-divers. Principal boat types are the chalana with out-board and the lancha with inboard engine. Sails areno longer used as the prime source of power. Socialrelationships between San Andres and Laguna Grandeare close.

TAMBO DE MORA. 100 houses. Principal tech-niques include the red and espinel. Cordel and chispaare little used; neither the chinchorro nor the harponare employed. Principal craft are the chalana andlancha, as at San Andres. Fishing is reported as hav-ing declined markedly in the last few years.

225


JAHUAY. 6 houses. Fishing is largely for subsis-tence. The principal net is the chinchorro, with minoruse of the red. The espinel and cordel are also used,from the beach only. The harpon is also employed.Caballitos are the only craft.

CERRO AZUL. 100 permanent fishermen with anequal number added in the peak season. Principaltechniques include the espinel, cordel, red, and chin-chorro. The harp6n is not used. Caballitos are notused, and lanchas are only occasionally found. Theprincipal craft is the zapato chalana.

ASIA. 50 houses. Fishing is slightly commercial-ized, most sales occurring in the community itself,to buyers or passers-by. The chinchorro, cordel,espinel, red, and harp6n are all employed. The cabal-lito is the only craft.

PUCUSANA. 100 fishermen. Fishing is largelycommercial. The red, cordel, espinel, muestra, andharp6n are all employed. Lanchas with inboard enginesare common; many of these are fitted with a glass-bottomed box in the hull which aids in spearing flatfish.

ANCON. 200 fishermen. Principal techniques arethe cordel, red, muestra, harpon, espinel, trampilla,trasmallo, arrastra, and chinchorro de arrastre. Prin-cipal craft are the chalana and lancha. Caballitos arenot used; canoas were used formerly as were balsas.

PUERTO CHANCAY. 100 fishermen. Principal tech-niques include the red, atarraya, trasmallo, cordel,espinel, muestra, and occasional harpon. Chalanas andlanchas, almost always with inboard motors, are theonly craft. (Lanchas without motors are called "buse-tas.") Caballitos, balsas, and canoas were used form-erly but are no longer.

PUERTO DE HUACHO. 2,000 fishermen (this is thefigure given, but it seems high). Fishing is distinctlycommercial, with much of the catch destined for fac-tory processing. Principal techniques are the boliche,red, chinchorro, chinchorro de arrastre, atarraya,trasmallo, cordel, espinel, robadera; the harpon israre. Craft include the chalana, the lancha, and thebote (with motor but not with sail). No aboriginal craftpersist. (Raimondi, 1942, I: 88 reports dugout canoes.)

SUPE. 40 houses of resident fishermen, althoughtheir number is augmented by frequent visitors. Princi-pal techniques are the cordel, red, espinel, chinchorro,and muestra. The harp6n is not used. Lanchas with afelucca hull are common; balsas are also found.

PUERTO CHICO. 60 houses. Principal techniquesinclude the chinchorro, red, espinel, and anchovetera.Principal craft are the chalana and lancha, all withinboard engines. Balsas and canoas were employedbut have fallen into disuse; caballitos were neverused.

PUERTO HUARMEY. 30 houses, 100 fishermen.Fishing is distinctly commercial, with the catch goingto a local factory. The boliche is the principal com-mercial technique, although the cordel, red, trasmallo,chinchorro, espinel, and atarraya are also found. Prin-cipal craft are the chalana and lancha, both with inboardengines. Caballitos were never used.

HUANCHAQUITO. 6 houses. The inhabitants alsofarm and keep chickens and goats. Balsas of a crudevariety, without sails, are the only craft. The princi-pal technique seems to be the cordel.

LOS CHINOS. 44 houses; 60 permanent fishermen;5 temporary fishermen. There is some minor use ofthe chinchorro from the shore, as well as some useof the trasmallo. Principal techniques are the red,cordel, espinel, muestra, and atarraya. The lancha isthe only craft. Caballitos were used formerly, butcanoas and balsas never were.

CHIMBOTE. 2,000 fishermen. Fishing is heavilycommercial, most of the catch being processed in alocal factory. The principal techniques are the boliche,red, chinchorro, cordel, and muestra. The atarrayaand harpon are not used; the espinel is rarely employed.Caballitos were used formerly, but no aboriginal craftare found today. The commonest hull for fishing is thebote, with inboard motor; chalanas are used only fortransportation and lightering minor cargo.

GUANAPE. 6 houses. Fishing is at a subsistencelevel. The commonest technique is the chinchorro,with some use of red, cordel, espinel, and muestra.Some chalanas are used, but the commonest craft isthe caballito.

PUERTO MOORIN. 2 houses. Fishing is at a sub-sistence level. The commonest technique is the chin-chorro, with some use of cordel and muestra. The red,harpon, and trasmallo are not used. Most fishing isdone from the beach, although the chalana is occasion-ally used.

SALAVERRY. Minor line-fishing from the pier byvisitors.

LAS DELICIAS. The community reported by Gillin(1947) appears to have disappeared. Some Mocherosfish from the beach, but there is no permanent settle-ment.

HUANCHACO. 100 fishermen. Much of the fishingis commercial, but not for processing in a factory.The commonest techniques are the red, chinchorro,espinel, cordel, harp6n, trasmallo, and atarraya. Cabal-litos are common, but botes and lanchas are also used.Sails are rare; power is generally provided by inboardmotors. Balsas and canoas were never used at thisport.

PUERTO CHICAMA. Very little fishing.

PACASMAYO. Fishing has markedly declined; only3 fishermen go out, and they only occasionally.

PUERTO ETEN. 4 houses. Very few fishermenlive at the port, although it is visited by others fromSanta Rosa, San Jose, and Pimentel. Techniquesdescribed include the red, chinchorro, atarraya, cordel,espinel, and harpon. The trasmallo and muestra were

not used. Lanchas, caballitos, and botes were reportedbut sails were said to be rare. Balsas and canoas

were never used at this port.

SANTA ROSA. 500 fishermen. Much of the fishingis for the market. Principal techniques include the

226


chinchorro, red, chinchorro de arrastre, cordel, espi-nel, muestra, atarraya, and harpon. The trasmallowas not used. The principal craft is the bote, usedwith motor and sail together.

PIMENTEL. Conditions are similar to those atSanta Rosa, although relatively few fishermen live atPimentel.

SAN JOSE. 500 fishermen. The chinchorro islittle used, the chinchorro de arrastre not at all. Theatarraya, cordel, espinel, and harpon are the common-est implements. In other respects the community issimilar to Santa Rosa. Informants reported that canoasand balsas had never been used here.

PARACHIQUE. 70 houses. Similar in all respectsto Constante.

CONSTANTE. 35 houses with all inhabitants fromSechura. Fishing tends to be local and is done princi-pally with the red and chinchorro. Rayfish are heavilyfished; hence the greater use of the red here comparedto Matacaballo. Craft are the bote with sail and thebalsa, itself often used with sail.

MATACABALLO. 20 houses with all inhabitantsfrom Sechura. The atarraya, cordel, and harpon arethe commonest implements, with some use of themuestra The red is rare, used only for rayfish, whichare not commonly fished at this point. The espinel isnot used. Most of the fishing from Matacaballo is doneon long-distance trips on which the commonest imple-ment is the cordel. Fish are dried and salted andtaken to market either via Sechura and into Piura, orare sold in Eten, Pimentel, and nearby ports, havingbeen dried during the voyage. Fishing trips are madein botes with sail only; lanchas, caballitos, and cha-lanas are not used. Balsas are used for minor inshorefishing and as life rafts on the botes.

CHULLIYAC HE. Similar to Constante.

PAITA. 30 houses. Most of the fishermen arefrom Sechura; only a few are from Paita. The principalimplements are the red, atarraya, cordel, espinel,

muestra, and chinchorro. The harp6n and trampillaare not used. Botes carry sails or sails and inboardmotors; balsas are also used. Canoas are not found.

COLAN. 25 houses. Chalanas are found here;balsas were used but are now absent. Common imple-ments are the red (called atamila), the chinchorro(the bolsa being called buche), the atarraya, harpon,cordel, and muestra. The trasmallo is not employed.

NEGRITOS and north. (These data were obtainedfrom the Capitania of Talara.) Population figures fornumbers of resident fishermen are as follows:

NEGRITOSLOBITOSTALARACABO BLANCOLOS ORGANOSMANCORACANOAS

6472

2388212

25070

Fishing at most points is for subsistence or directsale without factory processing. However, fishing atTalara and Mancora is factory- oriented, particularlyas far as shark and swordfish are concerned. CaboBlanco is a sport-fishing center. All points are char-acterized by lack of the red and by common use ofcordel, a trolled lure (muestra a la carrera), espinel,atarraya, chinchorro, and the harpon. Boat types arethe bote with sail alone and the balsa, except at Talara,Mancora, and Cabo Blanco, where power boats, oftenspecialized commercial ones, are encountered. Manyof the fishermen, particularly in the southern sectionof this stretch of coast, are descended from Sechu-ranos; key last names which identify them are Flores,Periches, Rumiches, Eches, Ramirez, Fiesta, andPurisaca.

PUERTO PIZARRO. 30 fishermen. Common imple-ments are the cordel, atarraya, harp6n (spear) andharpon (harpoon), as well as the rel. The chinchorrois rarely used. Local fishermen use only the canoas,although the port is visited by fishermen in other hulls,notably from Ma.ncora. Pizarro is a favorite spot forcareening and cleaning vessels from the south.

227

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acosta, Jose de1894. Historia natural y moral de las Indias.

2 vols. Madrid. (First published in Seville,1590.)

Anonymous1953. Yale fishes the Humboldt Current. Yale

Alumni Magazine, 17: 1, October. New Haven.

.ncieta C., Felipe1952. El atun de aleta amarilla. Pesca y Caza,

5:3-22. Ministerio de Agricultura, Direcci6nde Pesquerfa y Caza, Lima.

Bennett, Wendell C. and Junius B. Bird1949. Andean culture history. American Museum

of Natural History, Handbook Series, No. 15.New York.

Bird, Junius B.1946. The cultural sequence of the north Chilean

coast. Handbook of South American Indians,Julian H. Steward, ed., Bulletin 143, vol. 2,pp. 587-594. Smithsonian Institution, Bureauof American Ethnology. Washington.

Cobo, P. Bernabe1956. Obras del P. Bernabe Cobo de la Compani'a

de Jesus. Estudio preliminar y edicion delP. Francisco Mateos de la misma companiia.2 vols. Biblioteca de autores espaniolesdesde la formacion del lenguaje hasta nues-tros dias. Vols. 91-92. Madrid.

Coe, Michael D.1960. Archaeological linkages with North and South

America at La Victoria, Guatemala. Ameri-can Anthropologist, 62:363-393.

Coker, R. E.1910. The fisheries and the guano industries of

Peru. Proceedings of the 4th InternationalFishery Congress. Bulletin of the U. S.Bureau of Fisheries, vol. 28, 1908, pp. 333-365.

Dampier, William1927. A new voyage round the world. London.

(Originally published 1697.)

Edwards, Clinton R.1960. Sailing rafts of Sechura: history and prob-

lems of origin. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology, 16:368-391.

MS Small craft of western South America.Doctoral dissertation in Geography at theUniversity of California, Berkeley. Inpreparation.

Engel, Frederic1957. Early sites on the Peruvian coast. South-

western Journal of Anthropology, 13:54-68.

Estrada, Emilio1957. Los Huancavilcas: uiltimas civilizaciones pre-

hist6ricas de la costa del Guayas. Publica-ciones del Museo Victor Emilio Estrada,no. 3.

Fiedler, Reginald H.1943. La pesca y las industrias pesqueras en el

Peru, con recomendaciones para su futurodesarollo. (With Norman D. Jarvis andMilton J. Lobell.) Translated by E. C. Evans.Informe presentado por los miembros de lamisi6n americana del "Fish and WildlifeService" del Departamento del Interior delos Estados Unidos del America, contratadapor el Supremo Gobierno del Peru' el anio1941. Compaiiia Administradora del Guano,Lima.

1944. The Peruvian fisheries. Geographical Re-view, 34:96-119.

Foster, George M.1960. Culture and conquest: America's Spanish

heritage. Viking Fund Publications in Anthro-pology, no. 27.

Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca1945. Comentarios reales de los Incas. 2d ed.

Buenos Aires.

Gillin, John1947. Moche: A Peruvian coastal community.

Smithsonian Institution, Institute of SocialAnthropology, Publication No. 3.

Gutierrez de Santa Clara, Pedro1905. Historia de las guerras civiles del Peru

(1544-1548) y de otros sucesos de lasIndias. Vol. 3. Madrid.

Hall, Basil1824. Extracts from a journal written on the

coasts of Chili, Peru, and Mexico in theyears 1820, 1821, 1822. 2d ed. 2 vols.Edinburgh.

Hammel, E. A.1962. Wealth, authority, and prestige in the Ica

Valley, Peru. University of New MexicoPublications in Anthropology, No. 10.Albuquerque.

Hartmann, Gerd1958. Apuntes sobre la biologia del camaron del

rio, Cryphiops caementarius (molina), Palae-monidae, Decapoda. Pesca y Caza, 8:14-28.Ministerio de Agricultura, Direccio6n dePesqueria y Caza, Lima.

Hutchinson, Thomas J.1873. Two years in Peru with exploration of its

antiquities. 2 vols. London.

[ 228 1


Hildebrand, S. F.1946. A descriptive catalog of the shore fishes of

Peru. U. S. National Museum, SmithsonianInstitution, Bulletin 189. Washington.

Kostritsky, Leon1955. Hallazgos arquelogicos que demuestran la

existencia de un antiquisimo pueblo pescador.Pesca y Caza, 6:51-59. Ministerio de Agri-cultura, Direcci6n de Pesqueria y Caza.Lima.

Lanning, Edward PutnamMS Chronological and cultural relationships of

early pottery styles in ancient Peru. Doc-toral dissertation submitted to the Universityof California, Berkeley, 1960. 656 numberedleaves.

Larco Hoyle, Rafael1960. La cultura Santa. In Antiguo Peru: Espacio

y Tiempo, pp. 235-239. Ramiro MatosMendieta, ed. Lima.

Lothrop, S. K.1932. Aboriginal navigation off the west coast of

South America. Journal of the Royal Anthro-pological Institute of Great Britain and Ire-land, 62:229-256.

Martinez Compano6n, D. Baltasar Jaime1936. Trujillo del Peru' a fines del siglo XVIII.

Madrid,

Means, Philip Ainsworth1942. Pre-Spanish navigation off the Andean coast.

The American Neptune, 2:3:1-20.

Middendorf, E. W.1894. Peru. Beobachtungen und Studien fiber das

Land und seine Bewohner wahrend eines25-jjhrige Aufenthalts. Vol. 2: Das Kiusten-land von Peru. Berlin.

Murphy, Robert C.1925. The bird islands of Peru: the record of a

sojourn on the west coast. New York.

Peru1950- Peces comunes de la costa peruana (Parts1956. 1-7.) Pesca y Caza, 1-7. Ministerio de

Agricultura, Direccion de Pesqueria y Caza.Lima.

Porter, David1822. Journal of a cruise made to the Pacific

Ocean by Captain David Porter in the UnitedStates Frigate Essex in the years 1812, 1813,and 1814. 2d ed. 2 vols. New York.

Raimondi, Antonio1942. Notas de viajes para su obra "El Perii."

4 vols. Lima.

Rodri'guez Santamaria, Benigno1927. Diccionario de artes de pesca en Espania y

sus posesiones. Madrid.

Ruschenberger, W. S. W.1834. Three years in the Pacific, including notices

of Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. Philadelphia.(Author's name is given in the volume only as"An Officer of the United States Navy.")

Schweigger, Erwin1943. Pesqueria y oceanografia del Peru' y proposi-

ciones para su desarollo futuro. CompaniaAdministradora del Guano. Lima.

Shelvocke, George1726. A voyage round the world by wtvay of the

great south sea. London.

Stevenson, W. B.1829. Historical and descriptive narrative of twenty

years' residence in South America. 3 vols.London.

Tschudi, J. J.1847. Travels in Peru during the years 1838-1842.

Translated by Thomasina Ross. New York.

Uhle, Max1906. Los kj6kkenmoedings del Peru'. Revista

Historica, Organo del Instituto Historico delPeru. Vol. 1, trimester 1, pp. 2-23. Lima.

Vasquez de Espinosa, Antonio1948. Compendio y descripcion de las Indias occi-

dentales. Smithsonian Institution, Miscel-laneous Collections, vol. 108. Washington.

Willey, Gordon1955. The interrelated rise of the native cultures

of middle and South America. New inter-pretations of Aboriginal American CultureHistory. 75th Anniversary Volume of theAnthropological Society of Washington.

229

21:2 - project irenedigitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucar021-003.pdf · 21:2...

Documents