A Survey of Ancient Peruvian Art. 363 



The table makes clear, perhaps, the three-fold source of the 

 art found in the Chavin stones. We now find ourselves brought 

 to the important question of the historic, artistic and ethnic rela- 

 tions between the three great arts we have studied. 



3. RELATIONS BETWEEN PROTO-CHIMU, PROTO-NASCA 

 AND TIAHUANACO II. 



We have now studied three ancient Peruvian cultures. It is 

 obvious that, from both the artistic and the archaeological points 

 of view, they form a group. We must now endeavor to 

 answer the question, How are these cultures connected? 



Already we have pointed out the basic similarity in subject 

 matter of Proto-Chimu and Proto-Nasca. From one of those 

 cultures the other in all probability was derived. But which 

 was the elder is only revealed by minute analysis. In the Proto- 

 Chimu we find an art which is of a distinctly advanced nature. 

 It has, so far as we know, no introductory manifestations, cruder 

 in type than itself in its own locality. Inasmuch as advanced 

 arts do not suddenly spring into being from nothingness, it can 

 only be supposed that Proto-Chimu art was introduced into the 

 region with which we associate it from some other region. The 

 same may be said of the Proto-Nasca art. Uhle and Joyce seem 

 to incline to the belief that this art is the elder of the two, and 

 Uhle believes it to have had an origin in the north, perhaps in 

 Middle America.-^ 



Let us see, then, if Proto-Nasca can really be justly considered 

 older than Proto-Chimu. In doing- this we must first determine 

 from what area or areas it could have been derived (assuming- 

 that it ivas derived from some source outside of the Andean 

 area). A rapid survey of the whole field of American civiliza- 

 tions assures us that only from one area could such cultures as 

 the Proto-Nasca and Proto-Chimu have been derived — Middle 

 America. There is much evidence that seems to point toward 

 all the South American cultures as having been derived from the 

 region to the north, but unfortunately this is not the place to 

 examine that evidence. We will assume, therefore, that if, as 

 seems probable, the Proto-Nasca and Proto-Chimu cultures zvere 



■^Uhle, 1913, pp. 341 ff. ; 1914, pp. 15 ff. ; Joyce, 1912, pp. 178 fif. ; Means, 

 1917. 



Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XXI 25 1917 



