Table Of ContentJournal Ethnobiology 17(2):235-248 Winter 1997
of
CHERIMOYA AND GUANAB ANA
THE
IN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
OF PERU
THOMAS AND
POZORSKI SHELIA POZORSKI
Department Psychology and Anthropology
of
University Texas-Pan American
of
TX
Edinburgh 78539
—
ABSTRACT. Most researchers commonly assume that both cherimoya (Annona
cherimolia) and guanabana (Annona muricata) have long been a part of the
However, and
prehistoric record of ancient Peru. archaeological ethnohistoric
research in the past 25 years strongly indicates that cherimoya was not introduced
into Peru until ca. A.D. 1630 and that guanabana is only present after ca. A.D.
Chimu
1000 and mainly associated with of the culture.
sites
is
—
RESUMEN.
La mayoria de investigadores suponen que tanto chirimoya
los la
(Annona cherimola) como guanabana (Annona muricata) han sido parte del registro
la
prehistorico del antiguo Peru por largo tiempo. Sin embargo, las in vestigaciones
arqueologicas y etnohistoricas de los ultimos veinticinco anos indican fuertemente
que chirimoya no fue introducida Peru sino hasta 1630 D.C., que
la al y la
guanabana presente solo despues de aproximadamente 1000 D.C., y esta
esta
asociada principalmente con de cultura chimu.
sitios la
—
RESUME. La plupart des chercheurs supposent couramment qu'une espece de
pomme
cannelle (Annona cherimolia) et le corossol (Annona muricata) ont fait partie,
du
pendant une longue periode, de l'inventaire prehistorique Perou. Toutefois,
recherches archeologiques ethnohistoriques des vingt-cinq dernieres annees
les et
pomme
ne au Perou
indiquent fortement que cannelle A. cherimolia fut introduite
la
du
qu'aux environs de 1630 presence corossol n'est attestee qu'en
apr. et la
J.-C.
1000 apr. et uniquement associe aux sites de la culture chimu.
J.C.
Two members apple family (Annonaceae), cherimoya
of the custard
murk
and guanabana soursop (Annona
chirimoya (Annona or
cherimolia Mill.)
important tropical fruits for the prehistoric inhabitants
Peru
indicating
two based on misco
importance of these fruits are
was Peru
cherimoya not introduced to
that
;ests
precolumbi
Chimu
with
almost exclusively
home
The
Modern information on the two species limited. native
botanical is
mountain
cherimoya believed by some botanists to be the temperate val-
\e
is
Research Council
southwestern Ecuador near the area of Loja (National
of
wild extends
although most authorities suggest that its habitat into simi-
):229),
MacBride
northern Peru (De Candolle 1959:176; Hill 1952:417;
vallevs
in
Rehm
and
1921:334, 1945:17;
>e
more
Cherimoya
currently
is
America
Latin
in
POZORSKI POZORSKI
236 and
No.
Vol. 2
17,
much
than such introduced bananas and Cherimoya
still less fruits as oranges.
is
grown and eaten as a dessert fruit and used as a flavoring or filling in most of
western South America, parts of Central America, and Mexico, and consumed
is
by
in limited quantities people in the United States, Japan, and western Europe
(National Research Council Along most cherimoya
1989:229). coastal Peru, trees
commercial
(ONERN
information about euanabana known. Most
well
less
is
West (De Candolle
Indies
MacBride MacMillan
1938:752;
more
guanabana, was grown
states that a tropical fruit than cherimoya, widely in
early times from Central America to southern Peru; however, this distribution
undoubtedly
reflects artificial extension of the natural growing area of guanabana
by humans
some
during undetermined
time guanabana,
in the past. In Peru, like
cherimoya, is eaten as a dessert fruit and used as flavoring and also
filling. It is
grown much
house
in gardens, but
frequently seen markets.
is less at local
Both cherimoya and guanabana
are desirable because each contains a
fruit
amount
large of sweet white pulp. Of the two cherimoya has sweeter,
fruits, slightly
—
pulp guanabana
less fibrous than most
characteristics
thai
number
imbedded
within the pulp of the fruit. There is overlap in the fruits' size and shape.
Cherimoyas
normally weigh about but can weigh up They vary
0.5 kg, to 3 kg. in
—
shape
heart-shaped, conical, oval, or irregular. Guanabanas, on the other hand,
somewhat
and even more
larger
irreeular in
skin
bumpy
// //
where
examination
the similarity ends. Close
cherimoya
(Figure reveals that has large, scalelike impressions or promi
1) it
small
distinctive
make
rough
feel to the touch. This
it
provides one key
of the clues concerning proper and both
the identification role of
cherimoya and guanabana
in the archaeological record of Peru.
from Peru and
(Brako Zarucchi
only
three
—
FIGURE
1.—Whole
FIGURE
Whole
guanabana (Annona
2.
showing
cherimolia)
fruit large
scalelike showing
muricata) fruit small, prickly
protuberances on
its exterior. protuberances on
exterior.
its
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
Winter 1997 237
have been cited as part of the prehistoric archaeological record of Peru (Towle 1961 18-
:
Of the three species, the sweetsop, Annona squamosa, can be readily dismissed as
19).
a misidentification. The only claim for pre-Columbian presence a single state-
its is
made who
ment Wiener sweetsops were used models
(1880:601) says that the as for
pottery vessels. Although no illustrations accompany this statement, highly likely
it is
was Chimu modeled guanabana
that he referring to pottery after fruit (see below).
%m
FIGURE
(b)
3.
guanabana
Manchan Casma Guanabana seeds have a distinctly ribbed surface, are
in the Valley.
strongly compressed and in section with a well-developed or thickened
laterally elliptic
hilum. Cherimoya seeds are less strongly compressed and subterete in section with a
weakly-developed hilum.
and guanabana resemble one another
The cherimoya to a cer-
actual seeds of
As
Annona.
tain degree, but are distinct from seeds of other species of part of the
we made comparative study of Annona seeds at both the
research for this paper, a
New August
York Botanical Garden and the Harvard Herbaria in 1996. Cheri-
moya resemble our recent
and guanabana seeds both institutions closely
at
(NYBG number
from Peru voucher
cherimoya and guanabana seeds
collections of
NYBG None
number guanabana).
E-581 cherimoya; voucher 2086 for of the
for
many cherimoya or guanabana.
either
other 17 species bears similarities to
cherimoya and guanabana can be easily con-
To the untrained eye, the seeds of
We
fused. believe that this the reason for previous claims for the presence of
is
when
one
cherimoya in the prehistoric record of coastal Peru. In 1970, of us, Shelia
Pozorski, conducted her midden excavation in Peru, she initially identified the
first
Moche
cherimoya.
numerous seed remains from Cerro La Virgen in the Valley as
who
However, Rudolfo Gutierrez, brought her
with the help of a local consultant,
guanabana
examples both she was able to correctly identify the seeds as
of
fruits,
were
and demonstrate no cherimoya seeds present (Griffis 1971:58,
ultimately that
to
we made
have
Table Subsequent 1970 season, several collections of
to the field
7).
POZORSKI POZORSKI
238 and No.
Vol. 2
17,
modern
cherimoya and guanabana specimens from between
various areas the
Lambayeque and Rimac
Valleys of coastal Peru. Examinations of these specimens
have demonstrated between two
the validity of the distinction the seed types.
The two
seeds of the fruits are similar, but close in
cherimoya
guanabana brown
seeds are similar in color (dark to black) and in size (cherimoya
mm mm
[n = 173]: 12.5-20 long [mean = 17.2 mm], 7.5-12 wide [mean = 9.6 mm], 5-
mm mm
thick [mean = 6.5 mm]; gguuaannaabbaannaa [[nn == 119955]]:: 1144--22C0 long [mean =
17.2],
;
mm
mm mm
wide [mean = [mean =
-13 4-8 thick
10.11, 6.1
distinctly ribbed surface, are strongly laterally comp]
th a well-developed or thickened hilum. Cherimoya
com
hilum (Figure The distinction between the two types of seeds especially im-
3). is
portant because seeds are normally the only remains of these encountered
fruits
in the archaeological record. Dr. Michael Dillon, Curator of Phanerogams at the
Museum,
Field has between two
verified this distinction the seed types (Michael
We
Dillon, personal communication, February have voucher
deposited
1997). speci-
mens modern
of cherimoya and guanabana from Casma
seeds as well as
archaeological guanabana seeds from the of Manchan both the Department
site at
Botany Museum
of Southern and
at Illinois University the Field of Natural His-
Museum
tory in Chicago (Field voucher numbers: modern cherimoya = F1960628;
modern
guanabana = F1960633; guanabana =
archaeological F1961656).
CHERIMOYA
prehistory frequently both cherimoya
state that
Moche
ancient Peruvians, beginning with the
f
north and Benson
e coast (Bennett Bird 1960:117;
Lanning
Lumbreras Mason
1967:15,
179; 1974:102;
however,
fruits, are invariablv included as Dart of
Moche
people, without anv assessment
critical
validity of the statement
much
ived without
their from Hoyle
lists, alteration, Larco In
(1946:163).
Moche much
Art of Peru, a more in-depth work on Moche
the culture,
Moche
plant inventory
1978:56-64).
The
published
archaeological evidence concerning cherimoya and guanabana
Two
surprisingly
is sparse. lines of evidence have been used sup-
traditionally to
port the existence of the two Peru—
fruits in the prehistoric record of pottery vessels
molded
into the shapes of whole and
seed remains from
fruits the fruits (Figures
Claims
3-4). that pottery vessels were made from molds cherimoya
of the actual
appeared
fruit first in the late 19th century (Wiener and
1880:601) persisted into
the 20th century
(Safford 1917:19; Towle no however, has an
1961:38-39). In
case,
illustration of a cherimoya vessel been published. Pottery vessels based on molds
guanabana
of have
been
fruit also reported
since the 19th century (Safford
late
Towle
1917:19; 1961:39; Wiener 1880:601V and surh vpqqpI* Hn pvict hnf *rp rarplv
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
Winter 1997
239
and Our
illustrated (Yacovleff Herrera 1934: figure personal observations of
If).
museum
and Chimu
Peru have
collections exhibits in revealed that only the cul-
ture, dating to the Late Intermediate Period (A.D. 1000-1470) of the Peruvian north
produced
coast, pottery vessels, usually jars, that realistically depict whole
fruit.
Even though
they are consistently mislabeled as cherimoya, these vessels invari-
ably depict guanabana (Figure The skin of the fruit depicted on these vessels
4).
bumps We
has the small, prickly that are distinctive of guanabana have never
fruit.
seen a cherimoya vessel, and this observation concurs with Yacovleff and Herrera
's
Museum
(1934:276) detailed study of ceramics in the National in Peru.
FIGURE
fruit
4.
museum
site
Actual botanical remains of cherimoya and guanabana have not often been
reported. Costantin and Bois (1910:257, figure 10) illustrate one of five reputed
cherimoya seeds found the 19th century at the site of La Rinconada near
in late
Lima on Peru (Figure The illustration provided not of
the central coast of is
5).
high quality, but the seeds depicted are more similar to seeds of guanabana, hav-
ing a ribbed appearance and a flattened perimeter ridge. Safford (1917:19) describes
came from
three varieties of cherimoya that reputedly unspecified prehistoric
He
Lima does not any
graves at Ancon, located just north of (Figure 5). illustrate
of these specimens, however, making difficult to assess his claim. Nevertheless,
it
upon which
Safford appears be the primary source subsequent au-
(1917:19) to
thorities base the identification of cherimoya in the prehistoric record, apparently
Towle
without any subsequent confirmation of identification (Sauer 1950:528;
and
Herrera
1961:38-39; Yacovleff 1934:276).
POZORSKI POZORSKI
240 and
No.
Vol. 2
17,
Batan Grande
LAMBAYEQUE
JEQUETEPEQUE
Pacatnamu
CHICAMA
MOCHE
Chan Chan
La
Plata
SANTA
Manchan\$
Las Hal f
das
culebras
Los
Gavilanes
PACIFIC
PATIVILCA
OCEAN
HUAURA
Ancon\#
RIMAC
La
Rinconada
km
100
MALA
—
FIGURE
5. Location of prehistoric where seeds have been guanabana
sites identified as
(Annona
muricata) or cherimoya (Annona The
cherimolia) authors believe of these
all
.
examples
be guanabana and
to date A.D.
to after ca. 1000.
more
In the recent Shimada
archaeological
record,
(1980:
moya
was
found
Sapame, com
at within the Batan Grande
Peru some-
(Figure in stratigraphic layers dating
5),
between
Middle
the
Melody Shimada
mens
are not however, and
illustrated, his Table 4 (Shimada 1980:202) the
lists
remains We
as A. muricata, not A. more
cherimolia. believe that these are likely
guanabana
remains, the dates which somewhat
of are uncertain because of their
archaeological At
context. Pacatnamu, near mouth
the of the Jequetepeque Valley
Gumerman
(Figure
5) (1991:95-102) reports abundant euanabana remains from
,
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
Winter 1997
241
Chimu
the occupation that dates between A.D. 1100 and 1370 (Donnan
1986:22).
His guanabana remains with our
identification of the agrees direct observations
of seed remains at the In the Viru Valley, Collier (1955:214) recovered two
site.
guanabana by Hugh Chimu
seeds (identified C. Cutler) at the late site of La Plata
No
guanabana remains were from pre-Chimu
(Figure recovered the of
sites
5).
Castillo de Tomaval and Huaca de Cruz (Towle 1952:352-356).
la
Popper (1982:149-151) states that nine cherimoya seeds were found in the up-
per levels of Los Gavilanes, a Late Preceramic (2500-1800 B.C.) site excavated by
Huarmey Some
Bonavia on
(1982) in the Valley the north central coast (Figure
5).
scholars (Pearsall 1992:190, 194; Quilter 1991:398-399) accept this identification as
well as the Late Preceramic date. However, examination of the accompanying
il-
lustration (Popper 1982:fotografia plus a brief personal inspection of the seeds
32)
in 1978 at Bonavia's laboratory in Lima have convinced us that these seeds are
number
actually those of guanabana. Moreover, given the small of seeds found,
their context, and the presence of late ceramic sites very near Los Gavilanes,
it
seems very likely that the nine guanabana seeds are late intrusions into the early
Casma Fung
site. In the Valley on the north coast, Pineda (1969:54, 128) recovered
seeds that she very tentatively identified as cherimoya from a test pit containing
No
Chimu-related ceramics at the coastal site of Las Haldas (Figure 5). illustra-
making assessment However, our
tions of these seeds are provided, difficult.
midden where remains
personal observations of the in the vicinity of the test pit,
were
of guanabana seeds are visible, suggest that her collections seeds of
guanabana,
not cherimoya.
Our own Moche and Casma
excavations and studies of subsistence in the Val-
Guanabana
on cherimoya
leys the north coast have never uncovered a single seed.
common, with
seeds, on the other hand, are extremely but only in association
Chimu Moche
Valley (Figure
sites dating to the Late Intermediate Period. In the
and
Chimu Chan La Choroval, Caracoles
the Chan, Cerro Virgen,
late of
5), sites
contain abundant remains guanabana seeds (Griffis 1971:58, Table S.
all of 7;
Pozorski Table 1980; 1982:183-196).
1976:159, 165, 172, 181, 189, 201; 1979:180, 2;
Chimu
from
no guanabana were recovered the early
Significantly, seeds
middens
excavated
reoccupation on top of Huaca del Sol nor in any of the other five
This
dating to pre-Chimu times Pozorski 1976:223-233; 1979:Table 2, 165-180).
(S.
Moche
strongly guanabana into the Valley did
suggests that the introduction of
probably
not occur until after the early portion of the Late Intermediate Period,
around
A.D.
1100 or 1200.
Chimu
Casma Manchan, dating
In the Valley (Figure excavations at to late
5),
Klymyshyn
Mackey and
through 1981:101),
early Colonial times (A.D. 1300-1600;
We
and
by Moore guanabana seeds skins.
(1981:118) recovered large quantities of
from
were and animal remains the
plant
consulted help with analysis of the
to
Manchan Moore's identifications of
excavations and can confirm that of
all
guanabana No cherimoya remains were uncovered,
remains
are correct (Figure
3).
even
in the early Colonial portions of the
site.
Of Peru have been carried out
the few midden from other areas of that
studies
guanabana. These
and cherimoya or
published, none has reported remains of either
Ancon-
(Huapaya
the
studies include the north coast near Piura 1991:192),
far
POZORSKI POZORSKI
242 and
No.
Vol. 2
17,
Chillon portion of the central coast (Cohen 1975:58-60, Table 1978:41, Table
1;
1),
Chincha
the Valley of the south coast (Sandweiss 1992:124-135), and the Upper
Mantaro
region of the central highlands (Hastorf 1993). Although future studies
may
expand
distribution patterns, current evidence of guanabana remains appears
and
restricted to the north north-central portions of the Peruvian
coast.
AND
ETHNOHISTORIC RECORD
EVIDENCE
LINGUISTIC
ethnohistoric
cherimoya and guanabana. During mid
the
rury
indigenous and introduced European growing
crops along Peruvian
the coast.
Significantly, however, although Cieza de Leon known have been
to a careful
is
observer, cherimoya not mentioned. Subsequently, Father Bernabe Cobo claims
is
have
to introduced cherimoya Peru from Guatemala
to in 1629:
//
cherimoya was kingdom
introduced to the of
saw
Peru. Guatemala walking
I first this fruit in the city of in 1629 [while]
me
Mexico;
to this fruit appeared so sweet absence
to that in this
I felt its
kingdom
and
[Peru]; thus, sent from there a good quantity of seeds to a
I its
When
friend so that he could distribute them among friends which he did.
I returned [to Peru] from Mexico after 13 years, found many fruit-bearing
I
(Cobo
trees.../' 1964:240-241, our
translation)
claim, however, based on unsubstantiated
his
cherimoya from
:
acknowledging
Cobo's
statement
more
statement
from Moche
the
since that time
cherimoya
Peru
to
cherimoya was
not introduced
Period.
some
cherimoya. The word " guanabana" does not appear to be
Quechua
because
not glossed any Quechua
it is in of the 16
produced Andean we
for the region Academia Mayor
that consulted de
la L(
(
Quechua
Carranza Romero
1995; Cerron-Palomino Cusihuaman
1973;
1976;
Domingo
de Tomas
Santo
1951 Guardia Mayorga Hornberge
[1560]; 1967;
Weber, and Cenepo
k,
]
Quesada
Ricardo
1976;
Swisshelm
1972). This
with Chimu
y the prehistoric which had more
culture a limited
north and
north-central where non-Quechua languages
coast
into the Colonial The word
Period. "guanabana"
could, there-
of one or more of the north mast lancniaaPQ ^QQnHatpd with
t
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
Winter 1997 243
Chimu
the or could have been borrowed, along with the adopted from peoples
fruit,
even further north. However, this word does not appear on any of the few existing
word
for these little-known indigenous north coast languages (Cerron-Palo-
lists
mino Kosok
1995:195-203; 1965:248-249).
"Chirimoya," Spanish cherimoya, appears some, but not
the spelling of in
all,
Quechua-Spanish Academia Mayor de Lengua Quechua
dictionaries (present in
la
Romero Cusihuaman
Carranza Lara Parker and
1995:66; 1973:18; 1976:38; 1971:84;
Chavez Perroud and Chouvenc Soto Ruiz absent
1976:54; 1970:35; 1976:38; in
Cerron-Palomino Guardia Mayorga Hornberger and Hornberger
1976; 1967; 1983;
and Cenepo Quesada Swisshelm
Weber,
Lira n.d.; Park, 1976; 1976; 1972). Signifi-
cantly, "chirimoya" does not appear in the two extant Quechua-Spanish dictionaries
from the 16th century (Domingo de Santo Tomas 1951 Ricardo 1951
[1560]; [1586]).
was
This evidence supports our contention that cherimoya introduced in colonial
word
times, during the early part of the 17th century. Breaking the "chirimoya"
down we
component comes from meaning
surmise
into parts, that "chiri"
its it
—
"mum," "muju" meaning
and "muhu," "tnuya" seed although
"cold" "mot/a," or
word
the reasons for the use of this combination are not entirely clear. Apparently,
word was from two Quechua words
the "chirimoya" coined in the 1630s or later
"moya" was
existing at the time, "chiri" and but only after the fruit introduced to
Peru.
DISCUSSION
The two cherimoya (Annona and
discussed paper, cherimolia)
in this
fruits
and
guanabana (Annona have different chronological spatial distribu-
muricata),
tions of use in Peru. Archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence strongly indicates
cherimoy
No
remains
Peru about A.D. 1630. botanical
into until
id
shown
have been
cherimoya have been conclusively to
from
media
cherimoya ever been documented on pottery vessels or other in
howeve
Once cherimoya was introduced from Central America,
Peru.
became amone Peruvian population because
a favorite the coastal
fruit
familiarity
spread.
pre-Columbian
in the
almost
we guanabana
Chimu culture on the north coast. In fact, believe that the presence of
Chimu
on
seeds useful as a distinctive time marker for sites the north coast.
is
guanabana have been
Seeds and occasionally other plant parts such as skins of
Casma
Chimu Moche, and
found abundance the Jequetepeque, Val-
in
in at sites
Moche and Casma
leys, but are absent in earlier middens excavated in the Valleys.
whole guanabana which form the bodies of pottery ves-
Rare
depictions of fruits,
Chimu
on
occur onlv ceramics.
sels,
"Why //
One might ask does guanabana appear so late in the prehistoric
"Why guanabana
and become popular?" The appearance of likely
did so late is
it
POZORSKI POZORSKI
and
244 No.
Vol. 2
17,
Chimu
with and
related the conquest incorporation
<
Chicama-Moche
growing
Valley heartland
into their
made
Jequetepeque Valley Pacatnamu probably
at sites like
lmu
Chimu
1976:277, 1979:180-182, 1980:193, 1982:194-196). popularity can be attributed
Its to
what manner
in
came
some
sible that sort of tropical forest-coastal trade network was
introduction
into that area.
Certainly questions remain about and
the origins distribut
moya
and guanabana
in the archaeological Cherimoy*
record.
in
knowledge guanabana
of limited
is
in the southern portion of the Chimu between the Huarmey
state,
undocumented.
eys, is largely Specifically, the seeds from La
Rinconada
North
cultural affiliation. of the Jeque
remains documented Shimada
a
are
finds
hem
Peru; Ecuador; and
in in other areas of northwestern South America,
America, and West
the Indies might clarify the aboriginal use of both fruits
evidence
eal of trade The guanabana
relationships. introduction
late of is
al interest because most much
prehistoric cultigens are present earlier in
the archaeological The
record. introduction guanabana
of
coulc
new
the establishment
of trade and/or
political relationships
Peru
southern
many
cnances
of recovering
physical remains
of the fruits are less than optimal. Never-
modern
given
theless,
archaeological recovery and emphases on
techniques
subsistence
reconstruction, attempts
to recover botanical remains of cherimoya
and guanabana
along with
other and
floral faunal remains should be part of
a
overall investigative
strategies. Furthermore,
the conclusions reached pa-
in this
per based on
are primarily
a careful examination and
of the archaeological record
on
secondarily
the ethnohistoric
record. This should reminder
fact serve as a that
the archaeological
record, despite
its incompleteness, can effectively be used to
more
document
accurately
specific events as well as correct preconceived ideas
about phenomena.
past
