Religion, ethnic identity, and power in the Moche World. A View from the Frontiers

new perspectives on moche political organization

Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and ColloQuia

Series EditorJoanne Pillsbury

Editorial BoardElizabeth Hill Boone

Gary UrtonDavid Webster

Recto Runninghead iii

new perspectives on moche political organization

jeffrey quilter and luis jaime castillo b., editors

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection | Washington, D.C.

iv Preface and Acknowledgments

© 2010 Dumbarton OaksTrustees for Harvard UniversityWashington, D.C.All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America

14 13 12 11 10 1 2 3 4 5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

New perspectives on Moche political organization / Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jaime Castillo B., editors. — 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-88402-362-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)1. Mochica Indians—Politics and government. 2. Mochica Indians—Social conditions. 3. Mochica Indians—Religion. 4. Mochica Indians—Antiquities. 5. Peru—Politics and government—To 1548. 6. Peru—Social conditions. 7. Peru—Antiquities. 8. Social archaeology—Peru. 9. Power (Social sciences)—Peru—History—To 1500. 10. Religion and politics—Peru—History—To 1500. I. Quilter, Jeffrey, 1949– II. Castillo B., Luis Jaime.f3430.1.m6n49 2010985'.01—dc22 2009037790

Cover illustrations (front): Well-dressed Moche captive; courtesy of the Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz (VA 17807). Warriors defeating their opponents; drawing by Donna McClelland.

Copyedited, designed, and typeset by Princeton Editorial Associates, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona

www.doaks.org/publications

Preface and Acknowledgments v

Contents

Foreword vii Joanne Pillsbury Preface and Acknowledgments xi

chapter 1 many moche models 1 An Overview of Past and Current Theories and Research

on Moche Political OrganizationLuis Jaime Castillo B. and Jeffrey Quilter

chapter 2 maya political structure as a possible model for the moche 17

Elizabeth P. Benson

chapter 3 moche state religion 47 A Unifying Force in Moche Political Organization

Christopher B. Donnan

chapter 4 moche sociopolitical organization 70 Rethinking the Data, Approaches, and Models

Izumi Shimada

chapter 5 moche politics in the jequetepeque valley 83 A Case for Political Opportunism

Luis Jaime Castillo B.

chapter 6 moche power and ideology at the el brujo complex and in the chicama valley 110

Régulo Franco Jordán, César Gálvez Mora, and Segundo Vásquez Sánchez

chapter 7 theocracy and secularism 132 Relationships between the Temple and Urban Nucleus

and Political Change at the Huacas de MocheSantiago Uceda Castillo

v

vi Preface and Acknowledgments

chapter 8 city planning and architecture in the analysis of moche social formation 159

José Canziani Amico

chapter 9 how moche rulers came to power 181 Investigating the Emergence of the Moche Political Economy

Brian R. Billman

chapter 10 cultural assignations during the early intermediate period 201 The Case of Huancaco, Virú Valley

Steve Bourget

chapter 11 moche political expansionism as viewed from virú 223 Recent Archaeological Work in the Close Periphery

of a Hegemonic City-State SystemJean-François Millaire

chapter 12 moche political organization in the santa valley 252 A Case of Direct Rule through Gradual Control of the Local Population

Claude Chapdelaine

chapter 13 religion, ethnic identity, and power in the moche world 280 A View from the Frontiers

Krzysztof Makowski

chapter 14 an outsider’s reflections on moche political organization 306

William L. Fash

References 323 Notes on the Contributors 369 Index 373

vi Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments vii

Foreword

At the beginning of the present century, planning for a new research library at Dumbarton Oaks began in earnest. Long considered a pressing need, the library, accommodated at that time in the Main House of Dumbarton Oaks, was quickly outgrowing the space available. The creation of the new library, in turn, meant reno-vations to the Main House would be needed. Facing the closure of spaces normally used for our scholarly meetings, Jeffrey Quilter, then director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, saw this as a fine opportunity to organize our symposia in collaboration with our sister institutions in Latin America. The first “off-site” gathering was held in Lima, Peru, in 2004. It was organized by Jeffrey Quilter, now at the Peabody Museum at Harvard University, Luis Jaime Castillo of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, and Andrés Álvarez Calde-rón of the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera. For their topic they chose the subject of Moche political organization. It was a timely selection. The Moche culture, which flourished on the North Coast of Peru in the first eight centuries of the Common Era, has become one of the best known of the Pre-Hispanic cultures of the Americas, thanks in part to the boom in archaeological research follow-ing the discovery of the royal tombs of Sipán in 1987. Despite the wealth of new research projects in the region—or perhaps because of the great number of them—no consensus had been achieved regarding the nature of Moche political and social organization. Some scholars viewed the Moche as a monolithic state, others saw a clear distinction between a Northern and Southern Moche polity, and yet others argued that the most appropriate model is one that posits that each valley con-tained an independent polity. The Lima symposium was an opportunity to debate these competing models and to present new data and new perspectives on this most spectacular of the pre-Inca cultures of the Andes.

We at Dumbarton Oaks remain indebted to Jeffrey Quilter, Luis Jaime Castillo, and Andrés Álvarez Calderón for their efforts in organizing this event. It is a par-ticular pleasure for Dumbarton Oaks to have collaborated with the Pontificia Uni-versidad Católica del Perú and the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera on

vii

viii Preface and Acknowledgments

this symposium on Moche political organization, as both institutions have a long and distinguished history in the field of Moche studies. I express our profound gratitude to doña Isabel Larco de Álvarez Calderón, president of the Museo Arqueo- lógico Rafael Larco Herrera, and Andrés Álvarez Calderón, director of the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera, for their generous support in hosting the sym-posium in the beautiful surroundings of the Museo. We are equally indebted to Luis Jaime Castillo, director of the Office of International Relations and Coopera-tion of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; Salomón Lerner Febres, then rector of the university; and Luis Guzmán Barrón, then provost and now rector of the university, for their support in hosting this gathering, part of which was held on their gracious campus. I am grateful to the talented and hard-working staffs of both institutions, as well as the other Dumbarton Oaks staff members who assisted both before and during the events, including Juan Antonio Murro, Bridget Gazzo, and Kristy Keyes Wolford. This volume is the fruit of the felicitous collaboration in Lima. In addition to the thirteen papers by Moche specialists, the organizers also invited two scholars from outside the field to contribute their perspectives to the research questions at hand. Linda Manzanilla, of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, presented a thought-provoking commentary in Lima, but her paper was not available for publi-cation in the present volume. William L. Fash, of Harvard University, concluded the symposium and the present volume with a stimulating consideration of the central research questions within the broader framework of Americanist archaeology. Volumes of this complexity rarely come about without the help of many indi-viduals. I thank the volume editors, Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jaime Castillo, for their contributions in shaping this volume and their many hours devoted to seeing it through to completion. I also thank the contributors to this volume for their willing-ness to present new data and debate the central issues, and for their patience during the production phases of the volume. Two anonymous reviewers provided detailed and insightful comments, and I remain indebted to them for their very thoughtful work. I also acknowledge the support of Jan Ziolkowski, the director of Dumbarton Oaks, and Marlene Chazan, director of financial operations at Dumbarton Oaks. Lisa Trever, a Harvard graduate student in Moche studies, was pivotal in the final editorial stages of this volume. Her exceptional work on this volume, both in Peru and in the United States, was essential to its completion. To her we offer our heart-felt thanks for her insights and very hard work. In addition, I acknowledge the con-tributions of Miriam Doutriaux, Henry Luis Gayoso Rullier, Emily Gulick, Michele Koons, and Carlos Rengifo Chunga, individuals who assisted at several stages of the editorial process. The production of this volume has been overseen by Kathy Sparkes, the publications manager of Dumbarton Oaks, Sara Taylor, art and archae-ology editor at Dumbarton Oaks, and Peter Strupp of Princeton Editorial Associ-ates. I am grateful for their fine help in seeing this volume into print. Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jaime Castillo dedicated this volume to two outstand-ing scholars, Elizabeth P. Benson and Christopher B. Donnan. It is a pleasure to

viii Foreword

Preface and Acknowledgments ix

join them in honoring these two, as so much of the recent florescence of this field is due to their pioneering work. Their careful studies over the course of some 40 years, filled with great insights and ideas, and always published thoroughly and in a timely fashion, quite simply transformed the field. Both, too, have contributed greatly to the development of the Pre-Columbian Program at Dumbarton Oaks, Betty most fundamentally as the first curator of the collection and the organizer and editor of the first scholarly volumes, and Chris as a member of the board of senior fellows for many years. They have both continued to enliven the intellectual life of this institution, and we remain indebted to them for their exceptional con-tributions to Dumbarton Oaks and the field at large.

Joanne PillsburyDirector of Studies,

Pre-Columbian ProgramDumbarton Oaks

Foreword ix

x Preface and Acknowledgments

Preface and Acknowledgments xi

Preface and Acknowledgments

The Moche of northern Peru is one of the best known and most intensely studied archaeological cultures of the ancient New World.1 The general public is attracted to Moche because of its representational art style as displayed in the world’s major museums and the novelty of discoveries constantly occurring at Moche sites. The New World’s wealthiest gold tombs, discovered at Sipán, and a traveling mid-1990s exhibition that displayed many of the finds impressed many beyond the relatively small number of Moche specialists. Subsequent discoveries of high status tombs, polychrome friezes and murals, and striking ceramic and metal artifacts un- covered at temple mounds (huacas) have continued to stimulate interest in the Moche. For archaeologists and other scholars, Moche is of great interest because it rep-resents a high degree of social complexity with a rich and remarkable archaeo-logical record of sites and artifacts. The details of political and social formations of earlier times (Initial Period and Chavín) are uncertain, and in deep antiquity many of the building blocks of the culture’s sociopolitical complexity were still being formed. By a century either side of the bce/ce divide, however, the princi-pal domesticated plants and animals and the technologies that would remain cru-cial for later peoples (particularly irrigation and metallurgy) were firmly in place in the Central Andes. It is then that Moche, as a cultural phenomenon, emerged on the North Coast of Peru, eventually spreading several hundred kilometers from the region around Piura, in the north, to at least the Nepeña Valley in the south. Although claims for the emergence of the state in Peru have been made for earlier eras (e.g., Haas et al. 1987; Haas and Creamer 2006; Shady 1997, 2004), the Moche of the Early Intermediate Period have been considered by many scholars, for some time, to have been organized at this level of sociopolitical complexity. Regardless of whether a particular scholar subscribes to the Moche as one or more states, the crit-ical importance of this phenomenon is that it was “complex enough” to offer us the opportunity to ask questions regarding how Moche sociopolitical systems worked. Today there is a dynamism in Moche studies that is the result of more than a cen-tury of research, with hundreds of sites recorded and studied, collections registered

xi

xii Preface and Acknowledgments

in museums around the world, and a body of literature that is challenging for any student attempting to enter the field. This long-standing research tradition has been combined in the past 20 years with a true renascence stemming from excavations at sites such as Sipán, Huaca de la Luna, and Huaca Cao Viejo. Indeed, although we have not performed a head count, we believe that the scholars actively engaged in Moche studies today comprise one of the largest research communities in Latin American archaeology. Because of the plethora of new research, we believed that the time was ripe in 2004 for an assessment of Moche studies. Furthermore, with fine-grained studies well under way in a number of North Coast valleys, we felt that a focus on political organization was particularly apt for a Dumbarton Oaks symposium. It seemed to us that some of the most important breakthroughs in Moche research have resulted from attempting to advance understandings of political systems and that this topic is of great interest to many beyond “Mochicólogos” or even Andeanists. In brief, Moche studies have proceeded from an early phase in which the nature of politics, whether institutional or more generally, was not discussed or clearly articulated. As scholarship continued, a single-state model came to dominate most views, although some scholars continued to see power more locally based. Lately, our vision of the Moche has been shaped by new geopolitical perspectives: the Moche realm was first perceived as divided into two large regions, North and South (Castillo and Donnan 1994a; Shimada 1994a), and subsequently some schol-ars have suggested that it consisted of smaller political entities in specific valleys or even portions thereof (Castillo this volume; Castillo and Uceda 2008). To discuss political organization we must first define our terms. “Politics” is generally defined as the means by which power is distributed, held, and used in a particular society. “Power” may be considered as energy potential—the energy itself, whether as inherent in surplus labor or access to materials necessary to sus-tain life or create luxury items—and the ability to have access to or direct such energy to one end or another. Given this definition, it is difficult to discuss politics without discussing economics, and so the concept of political economy might be the real core issue regarding questions of the ancient Moche. The use of the term “political organization” attempts to reduce the number of issues that have to be addressed in this discussion, and it tends to isolate the systems and the structure by which political economies operate in a specific society. For many scholars, “politics” means “government,” but formal governmental institu-tions may be lacking or, if present, extremely difficult to identify archaeologically. As scholars, our own thoughts regarding such issues have evolved even during the time between the conference and the final steps in producing this book. The book captures a snapshot of a fast-changing field both in terms of the data with which scholars work and the theories by which they interpret such data. In the chapters in this volume the reader will find not only new perspectives but also vary-ing ones ranging from views that equate the Moche style of artifacts and architec-ture with a political institution to those in which the relationship is much less clear.

Preface and Acknowledgments xiii

In other words, this book does not present a definitive, consensual view of Moche politics but rather various interpretations based on different assumptions about the relations among artifacts, behavior, and beliefs. Whatever Moche culture was, it does seem clear, however, that leadership, orga-nization, regularization, and control were activities that occurred through the use of a distinctive set of artifacts, architecture, and created landscapes. There was a community of people within a defined spatiotemporal framework that engaged in practices which left their traces in what we call “Moche.” How and why these prac-tices were done are the issues that make up the current state of the study of Moche politics. We can see patterns much more clearly, now, than a decade or two in the past, such as insights gained in the Jequetepeque Valley on the influence of Wari (the powerful highland culture that exerted a wide influence over much of Peru) in the waning days of the Moche style—a kind of geopolitics. Much more remains, however, to be done regarding the relationship of Moche as an art style and related religious cult with issues of politics. The symposium and this book have provided the opportunity to take stock of decades of research and to establish baselines for future studies. We chose the title of the symposium and this book, New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, deliberately as a reference to the 1968 volume edited by Lewis Binford and Sally Binford, which launched a new era in archaeology in gen-eral. Although we do not claim that this volume will do the same for Moche studies as New Perspectives in Archeology did for archaeology, we hope that it will establish a benchmark of the state of the art as it was in the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Additionally, with this volume we follow in the tradition of publishing comprehensive volumes on Moche studies as begun by Santiago Uceda and Elías Mujica (1994, 2003) and followed by Joanne Pillsbury (2001). Indeed, the pace of Moche studies is so rapid that the chapters in this volume may soon need revision. But for now, it serves as an indication of the direction of research at a par-ticular time and place and as a summary of the tremendous investigative efforts that have transpired in the past two decades. The trajectory of Moche studies in the past three decades has been greatly influ-enced by two leading scholars, Elizabeth P. Benson and Christopher B. Donnan. In more than a score of articles Benson has consistently presented new and insight-ful interpretations of Moche art and culture, exploring both major themes as well as tightly focused studies of art and society. Equally knowledgeable of Meso- american cultures, especially the Maya, Betty has brought an invaluable compara-tive perspective to Moche studies as well. Through her scholarship and publications, her maintenance of many friendships and professional links in Latin America, and her advocacy of Andean Studies while she was at Dumbarton Oaks and since then, she has been an outstanding contributor to Moche studies and much more. Indeed, her 1972 book, The Mochica: A Culture of Peru, should still be required reading for anyone beginning serious study of the subject. In a similar vein, Chris Donnan has been essential to moving our understanding

xiv Preface and Acknowledgments

of the ancient Moche from a generalized interpretation of a single cultural phe-nomenon to the more complex and nuanced understandings as represented by the chapters in this book. No aspect of Moche studies has escaped Chris’s attention, whether it be the analysis of settlement systems, the excavation of archaeological sites, or iconographic interpretations. In all such endeavors he has made major con-tributions. His publications have been both prodigious and timely, and he, too, has forged links with younger scholars and across international boundaries with a consistent generosity of spirit in sharing his vast and deep knowledge of North Coast archaeology. Chris also played a key role at Dumbarton Oaks as a senior fel-low from 1976 to 1984. As a curator as well as director of the Fowler Museum at the University of California, Los Angeles, he, like Betty Benson, demonstrated that Moche specialists excel at more than their special fields of study. It was thus a special pleasure to hold the 2004 symposium with Betty Benson and Chris Donnan as honorees. It was an even greater pleasure that both scholars, still vigorously pursuing Moche studies and other interests, were able to contribute papers at the symposium and chapters for this book. We are very happy, indeed, that we can honor these senior scholars and yet still count on them as colleagues for many years to come. We thank the many people who helped make the symposium and this book possible. In particular, we offer our indebtedness to doña Isabel Larco de Álva-rez Calderón and Andrés Álvarez Calderón Larco, president and director of the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera, Lima. They both graciously supported the symposium by offering financial support and the use of the Museo Larco as an elegant setting in which to hold the meeting. The staff of that fine institution was of great support. The members of the Dumbarton Oaks staff who traveled to Peru also helped make the meeting run smoothly, particularly, Juan Antonio Murro, assistant cura-tor; Kristy Keyes (now Kristy Wolford), assistant to the director of Pre-Columbian Studies; and Bridget Gazzo, Pre-Columbian librarian. Since the meeting, new per-sonnel at Dumbarton Oaks have been most helpful in developing this volume: Joanne Pillsbury, director of Pre-Columbian Studies; Kathleen Sparkes, director of Publications; and their staffs. Of those staff members, special thanks are offered to Jai Alterman and Emily Gulick, who each successively served as assistant to the director of Pre-Columbian Studies and who took care of many post-symposium activities essential to the production of this book. The Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú was the third institutional mem-ber sponsoring this event. We are thankful for the support from Salomón Lerner Febres, then rector, and Luis Guzmán Barrón, then provost and currently rector of the university. The personnel of the Dirección de Relaciones Internacionales y Cooperación, and the Oficina de Eventos at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú were of great help, for which we express our gratitude. This book would not have been published without the generous support and understanding of Jan M. Ziolkowski, director of Dumbarton Oaks, in the final

Preface and Acknowledgments xv

stages of preparing the manuscript for this book. We are extremely grateful to him for supporting this project to the end. In particular, he provided aid in the form of Lisa Trever, a graduate student in the Department of History of Art and Archi-tecture at Harvard University. Lisa was tireless and brilliant in her editorial work, ranging from tracking down obscure references to consulting with authors, and everything in between. She was greatly helped by Carlos Rengifo Chunga, head of the San José de Moro Archaeological Project Laboratory at the Pontificia Universi-dad Católica del Perú, who provided essential contributions from the Peruvian side of this project. We thank them both with our deepest appreciation: the phrase “we couldn’t have done this without you” was never more appropriate. Finally, and for the record, we recognize an event that we hope will become a tradition in the context of large international research conferences. In the days that preceded the Moche Symposium, the three institutions joined efforts to organize a junior conference where more than 30 young scholars, mostly members of the larger Moche excavation programs, presented research papers focused on Moche studies. The results of this conference were edited by Luis Jaime Castillo, Hélène Bernier, Gregory Lockard, and Julio Rucabado and have been published by the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (Castillo et al. 2008a).

Note1 Most scholars use “Moche” and “Mochica” interchangeably to refer to the

archaeological culture. The term “Moche” became popular with the Chan Chan–Moche Valley Project, which attempted to separate a linguistic and cultural reference, “Mochica,” from the archaeological culture. “Moche” refers to the river valley of the same name and thus conforms to widely accepted methods of archaeological nomenclature. For a counterargument to return to the use of “Mochica” see Shimada (1994a: xiii–xiv).

xvi Preface and Acknowledgments

In the past 25 years, the amount and the quality of the data on Moche and related cultures have expanded dramatically thanks to several long-term excavation projects. The results derived from these investigations have sparked heated debates regarding the value of the relative chronology proposed by Rafael Larco (1938, 1939, 1948, 2001), as well as the social and political reality that lies behind Moche material culture. Whatever the specifics of such arguments, the territorial limits of the Moche phenomenon have remained relatively fixed in the views of archaeologists. The Pacific Ocean is a natural limit to the west. To the east, the region of the arid rain shadow, steep slopes, and narrow to nonexistent floodplain in the upper reaches of the valleys appears to have been a boundary, even if the exact frontiers of the Moche and Recuay and other groups remain open to investigation. The Moche frontiers along the coast (north and south) are more problematic than those east and west because they appear to have been culturally or politically defined, but they still have endured in archaeological perspectives since the Larco era. In the north, artifacts recovered at Loma Negra and other sites in the upper Piura Valley have been seen as Moche’s northernmost expression, although this is often seen as an isolate, an island, in the midst of the Sechura Desert. The Moche occupation of the Piura River Basin has the nature of an enclave in the midst of the major long-distance trade route that crossed the Andes, especially for Spondylus sp., Conus sp., and Strombus coming from the warm Ecuadorian waters (Hocqueng-hem et al. 1993). The southernmost Moche huaca, Pañamarca, is in the Nepeña Valley, but Moche ceramics have been reported—sometimes only rumored—to be present farther south. In this chapter I discuss the Moche northern and southern frontiers within the larger contexts of politics and culture. To this end, I begin by reviewing how Moche political systems were constituted from the perspectives of style and iden-tity; ritual, monumental architecture, and urbanism; and leadership and the elite. I then conclude by referring to some specific research programs in the northern and southern frontier regions and with some summary remarks on the long-term tem-poral patterns in which these regions were involved.

chapter 13

religion, ethnic identity, and power in the moche world

krzysztof makowski

280

AViewfromtheFrontiers

Religion,EthnicIdentity,andPowerintheMocheWorld 281

StyleandIdentity

It is a common argument (see, for example, Bawden 1996; Castillo and Don-nan 1994a) that all producers and users of ceramic wares, attire, headdresses, and images in the Moche style belonged to the same ethnic group. The conviction that in prehistory one “can recognize peoples and marshal them on the stage to take the place of the personal actors who form the historian’s troupe” (Childe 1940: 2) was quite popular between the two world wars thanks to the influential writings of Childe and Gustaf Kossinna (Jones 1996: 64; Renfrew 1996: 126–128; Trigger 1989: 155–174). It therefore comes as no surprise that these ideas conditioned the percep-tions of Rafael Larco, who believed that the Moche phenomenon was the material expression of a single ethnic culture. As work has continued in recent years and as more Moche ceramic substyles have been identified, however, the possibility that Moche politics were much more complex and fragmented than a single expansion-ist state has arisen (see, for example, Quilter 2002). The ceramics known as Moche (or Mochica) almost exclusively comprise ceremonial forms: bottles, dippers, flaring bowls (only in the south), or small and middle- sized pitchers (Quilter 2002). In the Early Moche Period, the workshops that specialized in fine and coarse ceramics were also occasionally in charge of the manu-facture of utilitarian forms. In the Late Moche Period (sixth–eighth centuries ce) the increasing application of technology to the production of ceramics, with the gener-alized use of molds and paddles, as well as large kilns, had its natural repercussions. Large workshops like those of the Huacas de Moche (Gamarra and Gayoso 2008; Uceda and Armas 1998) or Mayal (Russell and Jackson 2001; Russell et al. 1998) were in charge of satisfying most of the needs of neighboring populations and imposed a relatively uniform style related to the tradition of high Moche technology. Where these workshops existed, the presence of the Gallinazo style, which was related with local- and even village-level workshops, was substantially diminished. Some Gallin-azo traits survived, such as the modeled faces on the necks of jars or the modes of designs incised inside grating bowls. The first wares whose manufacture ceased were the fine Virú ceremonial vessels. The transitional Virú-Moche style (Fogel n.d. [1993]; Larco 1945a) marked the time of the gradual decline of Gallinazo, which began at the latest between the fifth and the sixth centuries ce (14C cal.). Table 1 illustrates the problems raised by the application of the traditional defi-nition of an archaeological culture with regard to ethnicity. The relation between the presumed culture-styles of “Virú-Gallinazo” and “Moche” is satisfactorily explained only through the reconstruction of networks of production, distribu-tion, and use, as well as through networks of power established through the use of ceramics from the production centers and pooled labor in public works, par-ticularly evident where places of state-sponsored religion were built. Because of its characteristics, the Moche style was adopted by all who produced or built follow-ing political orders (Bawden 2004). The right to possess Moche artifacts followed from the political identity of the user, be it inherited or negotiated, and was an

282 Makowski

expression of the user’s rank. In the Virú-Gallinazo style, in contrast, style has characteristics derived from the habitus in its potential ethnic dimension (Bourdieu 1977; Dietler and Herbich 1998): the unique ways in which domestic space is orga-nized, food is produced and stored, utilitarian ceramics are manufactured and dec-orated, the dead are buried, the style of everyday clothes, and the like. According to current thinking, the identity articulated through the Virú- Gallinazo style has a possible ethnic dimension; it was developed through the hypothesized conquest of the coast between the Moche and Piura Valleys by the peoples led by the leaders of the Virú Valley (Fogel n.d. [1993]; Makowski 1994a, 1994c). Also significant were the coexistence and constant confrontations with the highland neighbors, the users of culture-styles classified as components of the “white-on-red horizon” (Willey 1945), as well as their subsequent Cajamarca, Hua-machuco, and Recuay expressions. Earle (1987) drew attention to the political role of cultural paraphernalia. In com-plex societies an individual may adopt more than one identity in a lifespan, and the political identity is one of the most important ones (Bentley 1987; Emberling 1997). For the Moche this identity was expressed in the adoption of ceramic vessels, cloth-ing, ornaments, and headdresses in the distinctive Moche style: they endowed their owner with the right to participate in supracommunal ceremonies organized by the

table 1 ComparisonsbetweentheVirú-GallinazoandMocheculture-styles

Virú-Gallinazo Moche

Mostly utilitarian pottery (approximately Occasionally utilitarian pottery 90 percent): large storage jars, cooking (approximately 10 percent): cooking vessels with and without necks, grating vessels with and without necks, small and bowls, jars, and bowls medium-sized jars, bowls, and platesOccasionally ceremonial pottery (approxi- Mostly ceremonial pottery (approximately mately 10 percent): spout-and-bridge 90 percent): stirrup-spout bottles, single bottles, single spout and lateral handle, spout and spout and bridge, dippers, small dippers and medium-sized jars, flaring bowls, and vasesChamber and pit burials in extended position lying on the back; copper objects were placed in the mouthHeaddresses with an upright feather and two stepped signs; types of dressCeremonial architecture built with cane-marked adobe bricks, sometimes decorated with polychrome reliefsAgglutinated domestic architecture and elite orthogonal structuresDefensive and ceremonial enclosures of the “castle” typeRecurring and direct association of diagnostic components in the same habitational and ceremonial spaces, burial chambers, and cemeteriesSame regional distribution prevails on the North Coast, between the Upper Piura Valley and Huarmey Valley


state. The greater the collection of such material possessions—ceramics included—the higher was the political standing of the possessor. According to this hypothesis, the distribution of Moche-style artifacts cannot be homogeneous or continuous, par-ticularly in Early Moche times (second to fifth centuries), because the distribution was correlated with the rise of the Moche political identity through the establish-ment of workshops producing such goods. The conditions at Huancaco, as described by Bourget (this volume)—“Moche-like” but not quite Moche—may be explained as an example of this phenomenon of uneven distribution of the production of Moche objects and the establishment of political power in its early phases.

Ritual,MonumentalArchitecture,andUrbanismThe mandatory starting point for explaining the longevity of the Moche style and its diffusion beyond probable linguistic and cultural frontiers (such as the Pampa de Paiján) is an understanding of the social role fulfilled by the decorated ceramic vessels. Donnan (1975) was certainly right in relating the basic forms of the Moche style with the vessels required to carry out the ritual represented in the “Presenta-tion Theme,” which later became known as the “Scene of Sacrifice.” Also correct was the deduction drawn by Benson (1975), who drew the attention of research-ers to the undeniable role several forms of Moche vessels had in mortuary rituals, for example, small jars with a rope or dippers. Stirrup-spout bottles, single-spout bottles with lateral handles, flaring vases or bowls, sculpted cups or vases, middle-sized jars, and dippers: these constitute the repertoire of forms that are considered expressions of the Moche culture and style. Incidentally, the potters who manu-factured these forms also made others locally, like pots or statuettes, particularly in the large centers of production related with temples and administrative capital cities, such as Huacas de Moche (Gamarra and Gayoso 2008; Uceda and Armas 1998). All scholars share the idea that the ceramics considered diagnostic of the Moche style were used in family, domestic, and intracommunity rituals, and above all in the supracommunal ceremonies such as those that Hocquenghem (1987) tried to reconstruct from ethnohistoric parallels. I believe (Makowski 1996a, 2004) that two major ceremonial sequences struc-tured life in the area of the Moche and Chicama Valleys in the Late Moche Period, between the late fifth century and the end of the eighth century ce. Both sequences involved combat, and the blood of the prisoners was subsequently offered to the deities of the skies and the underworld. Up to four groups of warriors belonging to the two halves and the two moieties of a river basin faced each other in combat. In one of these combats the prisoners seized were killed and bled on islands in the ocean, where they were taken aboard rafts with a deck or of the tule boat type. In the other, the warriors ran toward the mountains, from which some of them were cast down (Zighelboim 1995). The rest returned running to a temple in the middle of the coastal plains, where the priest in charge awaited them atop a stepped and ramped pyramid.

284 Makowski

The rich fineline iconography and sculpted ceramics show great variety in the attire and types of weapons characteristic of the coast and the highlands, and a surprising variety of physiognomic types (Donnan 2004; Woloszyn 2008). Clearly the ancient peoples of the North Coast, whose name remains unknown and who are known as “Mochica,” did not want to depict the participants in their rituals as members of a uniform society with regard to their attire or the way they fought. For example, this variation is clear in portrait-head vessels (Makowski 1999; Wolo-szyn 2008), which depict both the victims and the officiants of sacrificial rituals (see also Donnan 2004). In ritual combat, some warriors descended from the sierra, while others climbed up from their places of origin in the lowlands. Uceda (2000a, 2000b) and Bourget (2003: 258–259) have noted that Moche architectural complexes at Huaca de la Luna and at Huancaco, respectively, are characterized by restricted access systems that separated those who were entitled to enter interior enclosures from those who were forbidden entrance. Some groups could enter some patios or platforms but not others. Different groups of warriors and priests are shown dancing separately in scenes on fineline painted vessels. In the most complex scene, each group dances at different levels in a walled enclosure (Donnan 1982). In contrast, in scenes depicted on architectural forms in a landscape that was apparently sacred, the ritual participants were in constant movement and passed through different spaces—through the littoral, the lomas, and inland up the val-ley: they drew near to engage in combat, ran in groups from one frontier of their land to another, or ran cross-country down valleys. I am convinced that the sacrificial rituals were a political means by which to organize coexistence within a polity and to reaffirm hierarchies in a highly diver-sified society. The exchanges of garments and headdresses, and the duels in which the victor carried away the clothes and the weapons of the vanquished, gave rise to relations of ritual kinship or dependence among the lineages that took part. Above all, human sacrifice had a unique political role. The iconography shows how during the rituals, sumptuary goods were moved from one place to another: the vessels, clothes, Strombus sp. seashells, and large bundles that possibly held coca leaves of vanquished warriors were kept by the victors (Hocquenghem 1987; Makowski and Rucabado 2000). In this sacred landscape, with its ceremonial battles and movements of peoples and goods, the Moche settlement system was essentially “anti-urban” compared to the essential characteristics of Western urbanism (Kolata 1997; Makowski 1996b, 2002, 2008). In the Andes, efficient religious ideologies and complex ceremonial calendars regulated the annual movements of groups of people and with them the goods and services required. Fundamentally, the Moche pattern conformed to that of the Inca political-economic system as recorded by the Spanish chroniclers (Rowe 1967; von Hagen and Morris 1998). Monumental architecture, distributed along roads and irrigation channels and grouped in ceremonial centers of varying rank, determined the flow of labor and


goods. This traffic took place in a sacred landscape and endowed tribute in labor and goods with the aura of a religious obligation. Both preparations for war and for commercial exchanges were enmeshed in this ceremonial framework (Swen-son 2003, n.d. [2004]). Most of the population had lived in dispersed settlements located just outside the cultivated fields since the Preceramic Period. The sizes of settlements, before and during Moche times, did not exceed 4 ha in area, on aver-age, except in regional capital cities, which were likely the abodes of the warrior elite (Wilson 1988). The few communities larger than 200 ha, such as Huacas de Moche, Pampa Grande, and Galindo, owed their existences to the compulsive urbanism of the state, which demanded such concentrations as an essential compo-nent of its existence. All such large sites seem to have fulfilled the role of capital cit-ies as well as administrative and ceremonial centers simultaneously. None of them survived the political circumstances that contributed to their foundations. From the perspective of a history of political institutions, the unique form of Andean urbanism can be defined first of all as the materialization of diffuse power (Mann 1986) and thus as the means and the scene of transmission of religious ideologies (Kolata 1997; Swenson 2003). They were also powerful instruments of the social memory inscribed in the landscape (Silverman 2002). The elites of com-plex chiefdoms and incipient states (Tainter 1988: 28–31) use these ancestral mecha-nisms and resources to weave networks of hegemonic power (D’Altroy 2002: 6–9). The initial development of terrestrial and maritime means of transportation placed serious constraints on the territorial organization of power. Consequently, the ana-lytical concept of heterarchy (see, for example, Dillehay 2001) is extremely useful for understanding the characteristics and functions of the centers, because their power was complexly situated in a web of relations rather than simply imposed in a strict hierarchical form. Until now, scholars have focused on the processes of population nucleation and their relations with irrigation networks (Billman 1999, 2002). Attention has focused on ceremonial centers, the administrative functions of which have still not been fully supported by evidence, with the exception of Pampa Grande (Shi-mada 1994a: 187–226); on the agglomerations of urban centers that developed in the vicinity of temples (Chapdelaine 2001, 2002, 2003); and, to a lesser extent, on a few villages (Gumerman and Briceño 2003). Judging by the results of the excavations recently undertaken at Dos Cabezas, as well as at the Huacas de Moche (Chapdelaine 2003), the patio-groups of dwell-ing units occupied the space before the elevated platforms of the temples in a sim-ilar way to that found in Pampa Grande (Shimada 1994a) and Galindo (Bawden 1982b, 1996). The inhabitants of these dwellings carried out specific functions related to the provisioning of goods required to maintain the temple religion, cere-monies, and politics (defense and administration). It has yet to be established using area excavations what functions were fulfilled by the various architectural com-plexes in the typology developed by Willey (1953: 178–233): “Castillo Fortification Complexes,” “Dwelling Construction Mounds,” “Exposed Dwelling Sites,” and

286 Makowski

“Community Buildings,” to cite just a few examples. It is also unknown whether the “Isolated Pyramid Mounds” always had associated settlements; although by the title Willey apparently thought that they did not. Swenson (2003, n.d. [2004]) recently suggested that several Moche architectural complexes that lack the char-acteristics of “Pyramid-Dwelling-Construction Complexes,” such as the Castillo of Huancaco or Huaca de la Luna, were built ex profeso as ceremonial venues—the possible sites of sacrifices and banquets. The iconography evident in sculpted and fineline painted vessels exhibits a var-ied repertoire of architectural forms (Campana 1983, 1994, 1999; Bock 2003) located in different landscapes that apparently served as scenes of a variety of rituals. I am convinced that some of them will be identified by vestiges to be found through systematic excavations. Currently, however, given the state of our knowledge of urbanlike complexes (or the lack thereof), I find it hard to accept the concept of a specific form of Moche urbanism. However, the excavations at Huaca de la Cruz undertaken by Strong and Evans (Strong 1947; Mogrovejo n.d. [1995]; Willey 1953: 203, V-162) suggested that rel-atively high-ranking Moche elite may have lived and been buried in “Dwelling Construction Mounds”-type settlements. Considering that elite families inhabited a great part of the settlements with orthogonal layouts, including some “castles,” we may ask what the relation was between them and the residents of “urban” com-plexes, such as at Huacas de Moche. It is possible that some of the most powerful groups in the Moche political world lived outside the urban spaces, close to the cul-tivated areas and the irrigation canals under their administration and to the popu-lations they led. In the depictions of the warrior-chiefs and their possible subjects, we find a variety of headdresses, garments, face painting, and scarification, which in some cases seems to suggest identities that may have been tied to specific com-munities, possibly referring to higher or lower parts of the lower and middle river basins, respectively.

LeadershipandtheEliteBawden (1995), Dillehay (2001), and Shimada (1994b) correctly note that some of the above-mentioned traits are found in societies at the “complex chiefdom” level of social organization. However, these characteristics are also found in the political culture of the Inca empire, including at least 70 percent of the rituals (Hocqueng-hem 1987). The line that separates an incipient state from a complex chiefdom is certainly tenuous (Adams 2000; Earle 1987; Tainter 1988: 30–31; see also Smith 2004: 80–81). The definition of the Andean state has become even more problem-atic with the application of Carneiro’s (1970, 1981, 1987) theory to interpret levels of social complexity observable in the late Archaic Period (Stanish 2001). Major questions hide behind abstract classifications: to whom, and on what basis, was power delegated—to an individual, a family, or a group of oligarchic lineages? Was political power permanent, temporary, or did it oscillate between different agents


through time? Was the transference of power made by choosing the fittest? Was it by a system of inheritance that chose between children of the same or several moth-ers or selected only from among the highest ranking wife of a single lord? Students of prehistory broach these questions with great difficulty. Perhaps good DNA data from “royal” burial contexts might aid in such investigations. There are also questions about the characteristics of Moche society and the social role of its elites: Did this society consist of estates similar to those of feu-dal society? Was it composed of castes or opposed social classes? These questions give just two of the current alternatives in comparative history and anthropology. Should we envision the Moche society as being formed by aristocratic lineages comparable with Inca panacas, by warrior or priestly ayllus (clans), or by families of specialized artisans and relatively autonomous peasant communities, much like in Tahuantinsuyu (D’Altroy 2002: 177–181)? Recent reviews of the abundant mortu-ary evidence (Donnan 1995, 2003; Millaire 2002) have given an image that is clos-est to the second alternative. Although there is no question that Moche society was highly stratified, countless indications point to the determining role of kinship and residence in the status of individuals. In addition, the agricultural production system (based solely on human labor) and limited means of transportation helped ensure the permanence of a social system based on the collective use of land and herds of animals by peasant communities and “noble” lineages. According to recent studies by Ramírez (1996: 42–86), the term “use” is more appropriate than “possession” when discussing late Pre-Columbian land-tenure concepts. Colonial documentation places more emphasis on the areas usable for agriculture and animal husbandry and on the listing of cacicazgos (“chiefdoms”), understood as populations under the command of their curacas (ethnic chieftains), than in defining the boundaries between these political units. For Ramírez (1996), in Pre-Hispanic times the curaca ruled over people, not over land. It was only with the Spanish conquest that the curaca was forced to learn other rules and to under-stand the scope of the concept of private property. Moche elite burials are often grouped together and are directly related with the places where the interred individuals lived and/or fulfilled their public functions. Some are buried in platforms of an exclusively mortuary use (Sipán), in great cere-monial enclosures (Huaca de la Luna, Dos Cabezas), in urban areas associated with temples (Huacas de Moche), in outlying urban areas (Pacatnamú), in the probable dwelling places of local curacas (Huaca de la Cruz, Virú Valley), and in cemeter-ies associated with villages (Millaire 2002). At Huacas de Moche, habitation areas with common patios and kitchens and houses grouped around plazas can only be accessed through a single alley (Chapdelaine 2003; for Galindo, see also Bawden 1982b). This pattern of limited access is consistent with a rationale for the distribu-tion of burials and the movement of interred bodies: to assemble likely related indi-viduals within the same mortuary space. One perceives the intention of creating separate spaces to house and bury the members of related groups, possibly extended families.

288 Makowski

The finds made at Sipán and at Dos Cabezas, in the Northern Moche area, opened interesting perspectives regarding the concentration of power in the hands of representatives of a single consanguineous lineage. The “kings” of Sipán had themselves buried with their relatives and subject peoples—warriors, priests, and servants (Alva and Donnan 1993). The garments placed among the accoutrements make it clear supreme power was vested in the hands of a warrior chief and not a priest (Makowski 2003, 2005). The latter are dressed similarly to women (long robes and a head mantle or a mantle wrapped around the shoulders) and wear tur-bans instead of helmets (Hocquenghem 1977; Makowski 1994b). The iconographic evidence cited contradicts the interpretations of the power relations in the Moche world that are quite common in the literature, which regard these high-ranking burials as the remains of a religious hierarchy.

TheMocheFrontiersTaking into account the above proposals of Moche society as a system in which the distribution of sumptuary goods and their uses by elites in rituals were crucial to the maintenance of the sociopolitical order, I now turn to the issue of the Moche frontiers. Here I draw considerably on my own investigations in both the northern and southern regions. The exact limits of the Moche region have always been somewhat problematic because of an emphasis on the presence of distinctive ceramics as the chief crite-rion by which the physical presence of the Moche is judged. As described above, the southernmost Moche monumental architecture is at Pañamarca in the Nepeña Valley, but Moche ceramics are also found farther south. The northernmost Moche occupation at Loma Negra and elsewhere in the upper Piura Valley consists of an isolated cultural expression in the Sechura Desert and along a major long-distance trade route. In the first centuries of the Common Era, the entrance to the high-land road that passed through Loja was under the control of populations culturally related to the North Andean area and with direct access to products and specialists from the Tumaco–La Tolita area in Ecuador. There were warrior peoples in the Piura Valley with Gallinazo pottery predominant in domestic contexts and with Early Moche pottery (Figures 1–4, representing the Early Moche Period in the Piura Valley, and Figures 5–8, representing the Late Moche Period in the Piura Valley, on the northern frontier of the “Moche world”). Moche wares occur principally in the tombs of rulers, such as those at Loma Negra, but usually comprise no more than 10 percent of the total number of sherds found. Their communication routes seem to have followed the Olmos River, the piedmont, and the upper-middle basin of the Piura River. The arrival of such warrior peoples in the region is related to the abandonment of the hypothetical Vicús ceremonial center at Loma Valverde. Stratigraphic superimpositions, the distribution of Vicús and Moche monumental architectures facing each other, and the stylistic discourse among elite potters—Vicús and Moche-Gallinazo (Figures 9–11, showing the stylistic interaction among


figure 1 Moche I spout-and-bridge bottles depicting “Virú” warriors, upper Piura Valley. Asociación Cultural Enrico Poli, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

figure 2 Moche I stirrup-spout bottles, upper Piura Valley. Formerly in the Colección Domingo Seminario, now in the Museo Banco Central de Reserva, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

290 Makowski

figure 3 Fragments from bowls and grating bowls in the Virú-Gallinazo style, with appliqué decorations and white-on-red painting, Pampa Juárez, upper Piura Valley. Excavated by the author. Drawing by Krzysztof Makowski and Mercedes Miranda.


figure 4 Moche I spout-and-bridge bottle, upper Piura Valley. Asociación Cultural Enrico Poli, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

figure 5 Stirrup-spout bottle in the shape of a ceremonial jar, a Moche II form with Moche III three-color fineline decoration depicting a mountain god (Campana and Morales 1997) and a “moon animal.” Early Moche–Late Moche Transition. Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

figure 6 Bottle with negative decoration. Early Moche–Late Moche Transition. Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

figure 7 Bottle with three-color fineline painting depicting a bicephalous dragon. Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

292 Makowski

the potters in the upper Piura Valley)—during the Vicús–Early Moche Period (Makowski, Donnan, Amaro, Castillo, Diez, Eléspuru, and Murro 1994) all sug-gest that during approximately the first two centuries of their dominion, South-ern Moche leaders included local rulers in their political and religious activities. Later, elite Vicús ceramics workshops disappear, after a decrease in the repertoire of themes and personages and a diffusion of the forms and techniques of domestic Sechura-style ceramics (in the terminology of Lanning 1963). The latter were then adapted to ceremonial usages (Makowski 1994a: figs. 199–238). The excavations and explorations undertaken by the Upper Piura Archaeologi-cal Project provided a relatively detailed view of the function of one of the main centers of power in the upper Piura Valley, located at the foot of Cerro Vicús, on the left bank of the Piura River (Figure 12). The nucleus of the center is comprised of two high platforms made with unmarked, rectangular, molded adobe bricks, with several successive phases of growth that extend from Early Vicús–Moche to well into Late Vicús–Moche (Kaulicke 1991, 1992, 1994; Makowski 1994a: figs. 84a, 84b, 106, 107). Open plazas in front of these platforms bear traces of successive assemblies of people that consumed beverages and meat in ritual contexts, includ-ing possible human and camelid sacrifices (Kaulicke 1991). The domestic occupa-tion in the surrounding area was not necessarily dense or permanent and seems to have been short term, related to periodic rituals.

figure 8 Bottles with three-color fineline painting. Museo Municipal de Piura. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.


figure 9 Vicús-Vicús statuette of a female personage (Amaro 1994: 62–63). Moche ware and finish with three-color painting. Asociación Cultural Enrico Poli, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

figure 10 Vicús-Vicús statuette of a female personage (Amaro 1994: 62–63). Vicús ware and finish. Asociación Cultural Enrico Poli, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

figure 11 Stirrup-spout bottle, Moche I from Piura Valley form, ware, and finish, with details painted in two colors on a cream slip. Vicús-Vicús design depicts a fantastic animal with an iguana head and the body of a bird. Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.

294 Makowski

figure 12 Map of upper Piura Valley areas studied by the Upper Piura Archaeological Project by Jean Guffroy, Peter Kaulicke, and Krzysztof Makowski. Co, Cerro; Hda, Hacienda. Drawing by Mercedes Miranda.


A similar picture is found to the south of the complex, where the cemeteries of Yécala and Loma Negra extend over more than 100 ha. A large area of workshops related to dwellings and encampments was found beside the cemeteries. Surface finds and excavations showed the presence of pottery and metallurgical furnaces (Makowski and Velarde 1998). The pottery associated with these activities is Gallin-azo, Moche, and Vicús, as well as some exotic minor traditions from the coast and the highlands. This same combination of styles is found in neighboring cemeteries.

As the cemeteries, workshops, encampments, and public-ceremonial architec-ture were all used in the same period and were adjacent to one another, it is likely that they formed one ceremonial complex. In this interpretation, the manufacture of funeral furnishings and the ceremonies of sacrifices and banquets shared by peo-ples of different origins were used by Moche leaders as a political platform with religious underpinnings that enabled them to establish relations of ritual kinship with local elites and, by extension, their followers. These relations opened the way to the coveted tropical seashells for the Southern Moche leaders and, perhaps, also to sources of copper in the Sechura Desert and of gold in the Quiroz River. The distinctiveness of Moche and local Vicús and Gallinazo wares was tested through analysis of the technical features of ceramics in relation to their styles. A conventional macroscopic ware analysis was undertaken, combined with electron microprobe spectrometry by Iván Ghezzi of Yale University (Makowski et al. n.d.) and later, a laser ablation time-of-flight ICP-MS instrument was employed by Hec-tor Neff (n.d.) of California State University at Long Beach. The results of these dif-ferent tests coincided. Nineteen separate wares, each with different technological features, were distributed between four styles: five Moche, four Virú (Makowski 1994a: 88–91, note 13), and eight Vicús. Two wares were classified as exotic (Amaro 1994: 26, anexo 10) because of their apparent Ecuadorian influences from the coast and the highlands, one each, respectively. The wares are distinguished from one another by the choice of clays and tem-per; the techniques used to prepare, build, and finish vessels; and their firing condi-tions. The Gallinazo wares are quite close to the Moche ones. Except for one case, potters seem to have used the same clay sources and related techniques to prepare and build vessels. In addition, a significant number of Moche forms and designs were made using the Virú-Gallinazo technology. Vicús wares are quite different, but the exotic wares with stylistic traits similar to pottery from highlands of Piura and Loja, and possibly to that from Tumbes (Garbanzal), are even more distinctive. It must be noted, however, that some sherds with typical Vicús wares appear to be related to Moche forms. I found it useful to compare the results of the upper Piura Valley analyses with those of cluster analyses of a similar study carried out for late Pre-Columbian ceramics in Lurín. In Lurín, the probable presence of artisans brought as mit-maquna from different parts of the Inca empire (or perhaps by the flow of pilgrims to the temple-oracle of Pachacamac) and the system of exchanges sponsored by the state had an impact on the great variety of ceramic styles that coexisted throughout

296 Makowski

the Late Horizon (Makowski and Vega Centeno 2004). Surprisingly, the cluster dispersion in the upper Piura wares is higher than that in Lurín, which strongly suggests that the vessels recorded in the context of workshops and in the burials of Pampa Juárez, as well as in adjacent cemeteries, were made with clay derived from different sources and with different tempers. My research in the southern frontier, which I have undertaken with Milosz Giersz and Patrycja Przadka (Warsaw University), is at an earlier stage than my work on the upper Piura Valley. Even so, a detailed survey of the lower and mid-dle Culebras Valley, neighboring ravines (Giersz and Przadka 2003; Giersz n.d. [2007]), and the study of private collections already allow for comparative study. A singular fact stands out: settlements with parallelepiped, molded, and plain adobe-brick architecture and associated Moche cemeteries are located at strategic sites for the control of the North-South coastal road. On this part of the coast it is usually not possible to move along the shoreline, or at least it is not easy, because the steep foothills of the Andes reach out to the Pacific Ocean and form high cliffs. The passage of people and llama caravans took place several kilometers away from the coast, through dry riverbeds or via accessible passes through coastal hills (Figure 13). In the Culebras Valley, Moche settlements close to the Castillo de Ampanú, as well as the area of Quillapampa and Panteón, have the above-mentioned loca-tion. Their placement atop high slopes of fossil terraces with a good visual com-mand of the valley is strategic. Even so, except for the Castillo de Ampanú (Giersz and Przadka 2003: 56–58, fig. 38),1 there is no evidence of any fortification, such as those found at later Casma–Early Tanguche sites, which are contemporary with the Transitional Period in the Jequetepeque Valley and with the Early Chimú of the Moche and Chicama Valleys (Wilson 1988: 224–260; figs. 235–256). Bonavia (1982) recorded a similar situation in the Huarmey Valley for settle-ments PV-35-16, 45, 58, and 64; the well-known Middle Horizon site of El Castillo (PV-35-78); and cemeteries (PV-35-24, 37, 38, and 40). In these cases, the Moche set-tlements are closely associated with the most direct road from Casma to Huarmey. In the section between Culebras and Huarmey the road passes through the wide and easily traversed Gallinazo ravine (see Figure 13). The distance is just 23 km, a mere 4 to 5 hours of travel time on foot. In this area, too, fortified settlements or “castles” in Huarmey (PV-35-72) seem to have been abandoned before the arrival of Moche in the area, at least as evidenced by ceramics. The Moche ceramics discovered at the above-mentioned sites are associated with vessels comparable to Gallinazo and local utilitarian wares. The few complete vessels found in these areas, which are now in private collections, are revealing for several reasons. Based on their materials and finishes, both pieces seem to have been made locally by the same potters who made utilitarian vessels, while their style is comparable with the best works from Moche and Chicama workshops. Fig- ures 14–17 show ceramics from the Early Moche Period in the Culebras Valley, and Figures 18–21 show the same for the Late Moche Period in the Culebras Val-ley, on the southern frontier of the Moche world. In the Piura Valley no distinction


could be made, until now, between the imported pieces and those manufactured locally by local or foreign potters.

Despite uncertainties in ceramic analyses, excavations in 2004–05 at the site of Quillapampa have made clear the continuity of the Moche occupation from the earliest to the latest phase, with four successive stratigraphic levels of the total seven identified (Figure 22). The settlement of Quillapampa is a large elite resi-dence built atop a terrace (Figure 23). The Gallinazo and Early Moche stone enclo-sures rise over a leveled layer with Early Horizon materials (see Figure 22). In later phases, these enclosures were used to make a raised platform and build wattle-and-daub rooms, the roofs of which were adorned with ceramic clubs. The sealing off of the penultimate level was related to the construction of a large, rectangular burial

figure 13 Map showing the major Moche route between the Moche Valley and the Culebras and Huarmey Valleys. Drawing by Milosz Giersz.

298 Makowski

figure 14 Ceramic club. Orange Early Moche style. Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

figure 15 Ceramic snail shell. Details painted in white. Orange Early Moche style. Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

figure 16 Stirrup-spout bottle with a feline representation. Details painted in cream over orange. Moche III phase style (Larco 1948). Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

figure 17 Stirrup-spout bottle with a scene of sexual intercourse. Details painted in cream over orange. Moche III style (Larco 1948). Early Moche–Late Moche Transition. Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.


figure 18 Sculpted stirrup-spout bottle, Moche IV style, depicting the serpent belt deity (Marine Twin) coming out of the seashell. Early Moche–Late Moche Transition. Compare with an identical bottle in the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera (Cod. 75-05-01) and similar ones (Giersz et al. 2005: figs, 345–347). Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

figure 19 Sculpted stirrup-spout bottle, Moche IV style, depicting an officiant playing the panpipes. Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

chamber with plain, molded, parallelepiped adobe bricks. Most of the contents of the chamber were altered or removed by looters. What remained were ceramic fragments and complete pieces in broken condition in the local Moche III style, but closely related with the best ceramic traditions of the Moche Valley (Figure 24).

The settlement of Panteón, on the right bank of the valley, has similar char-acteristics to Quillapampa. Both Moche settlements in the Culebras Valley are clearly placed along the road that led from the ceremonial center of Pañamarca in the Santa Valley to Car Car (Bonavia 1982) in the Huarmey Valley on the southern frontier of the Moche world (see Figure 13). It must be noted that the Moche sites recorded by Bonavia (1982) in the Huarmey Valley do not have defensive character-istics and are distributed on both banks of the river. The Southern Moche frontier does not have the nature of a formal border but was instead an enclave where the road ends, with open settlements distributed over the valley bottom on both sides of the entrance to the ravine. In this context, pre-sumably the efficacy of systems of ritual kinship was the main protection against potential enemies. The ceremonial center of Pañamarca is, in any case, the major

300 Makowski

settlement on the frontier (Bonavia and Makowski 1999). Also in the Late Moche Period—the time when the hypothetical territorial state emerged, with its capital city in Huacas de Moche—the number of fortified sites in Virú fell substantially, according to Willey (1953: 157–175, 224–227), while, according to Wilson (1988: 183–187), in the Santa Valley they disappeared.

SomeConclusions:EarlyMocheversusLateMocheIn this chapter I have argued for the need to study the Moche with new paradigms. Over and above inevitable debates regarding different interpretive scenarios, the evidence shows that the “Virú-Gallinazo” and “Moche” cultures and/or styles were

figure 21 Sculpted stirrup-spout bottle, Moche IV style, depicting a seated coastal warrior. Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

figure 20 Sculpted stirrup-spout bottle, Moche IV style, depicting a priest holding a dipper. Private collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.


figu

re 2

2 St

ratig

raph

ic p

rofil

e of

the

cent

ral p

art o

f the

stru

ctur

e di

sturb

ed b

y lo

oter

s at Q

uilla

pam

pa, a

Moc

he e

lite

dwel

ling.

The

adob

e-br

ick

buria

l ch

ambe

r was

seal

ed in

the

next

-to-la

st oc

cupa

tion

phas

e (fl

oor 2

). Th

e lo

wer

leve

ls ha

ve V

irú-G

allin

azo

and

Early

Moc

he c

eram

ic m

ater

ials.

Mid

dle

Hor

izon

potte

ry is

foun

d on

the

surfa

ce. E

xcav

atio

ns u

nder

take

n by

the

“Cul

ebra

s Val

ley”

Arc

haeo

logi

cal P

roje

ct, P

ontifi

cia

Uni

vers

idad

Cat

ólic

a de

l Pe

rú–W

arsa

w U

nive

rsity

Agr

eem

ent.

Dra

win

g by

Milo

sz G

iers

z.

302 Makowski

both part of the same phenomenon and cannot be studied separately from a chron-ological standpoint, much less when trying to understand the spatial distribu-tion of settlements. I have divided the Moche chronology into three broad periods (Table 2): Early Moche (ca. ce 200–500), Late Moche (ca. ce 500–700), and Epi-gonic Moche (ca. ce 700–900), although it must be noted that the limiteduse of pieces in an epigonal Moche style persisted in the Early and Middle Lambayeque–Sicán Period. Each of these periods had its own dynamic. In the Early Moche Period, the conquest of new land brought about a major transformation in the Virú-Gallinazo culture. The main causes behind this trans-formation were the need to legitimize political rights through complex funeral ritu-als, the successive and indispensable negotiation with conquered populations, and access to new foreign technologies and experienced labor. In the northern area this expansion is marked by the vestiges of the funeral cult of strong leaders as seen at tomb sites at La Mina and Loma Negra. The lords of Dos Cabezas and Sipán were probably the descendants of the first conquerors and, in any case, insisted on show-ing such claims through lavish burial rites and the paraphernalia of the state cult with it prolific and elaborate iconography. It is well known that in politics, both ancient and modern, neighbors can be enemies, but the neighbors of our neigh-bors can be friendly and often are so. Alliances were often sealed with marriages,

figure 23 An up-valley view from Quillapampa. Excavations undertaken by the “Culebras Valley” Archaeological Project, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú–Warsaw University Agreement. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.


figure 24 Ceramic materials recovered in the adobe-brick burial chamber at Quillapampa (see Figure 22), Moche III bottles. In the top-center image, note the sculpted image of the deity similar to the piece in the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera (73-05-08; see also Giersz wet al. 2005: fig. 317). “Culebras Valley” Archaeological Project, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú–Warsaw University Agreement. Photograph by Milosz Giersz.

table 2 Calibrated14CdatesandLarco’sstylisticchronology

Date(Cal.14Cce) Phase

Transitional Early Lambayeque Epigonic Moche800 Late Moche Polychrome Moche, Moro Moche V style Middle–Late Moche Characteristics of Larco phases III, IV, and V Late Gallinazo500 Early Moche Characteristics of Larco phases I, II, and III Middle Gallinazo200 Precedents of the Moche style Early Gallinazo0 Salinar

Source: The Larco stylistic chronology is from Larco (1948).

304 Makowski

presents, perhaps by the movement of skilled artisans (Helms 1993), pilgrimages, and visits. This may explain the surprising similarities in the local Moche styles and local Piura and Jequetepeque Valley styles, in contrast to the differences with the Lambayeque style. The “Virú-Gallinazo culture” was gradually replaced by the “Moche culture” between the second and the sixth centuries ce (14C cal.). The elites of different ori-gin, who coexisted peacefully on the frontiers of the Moche states, had access to cer-emonial vessels, textiles, metal ornaments, and weapons manufactured in specialized workshops. Judging by the frequently cosmopolitan nature (Makowski 1994a) of the Early Moche style (Moche I, II, and partly III), it can be assumed that the ethnic identities of producers and users often did not coincide. Furthermore, negotiations between the native elites and the new Moche elite also left their imprints. New cer-emonial centers built with the pooled labor of the conquerors and the conquered replaced the local spaces where festivals, ritual combat, and sacrifices were held. The traditional ways of making and adorning vessels and garments endured longer in local production for domestic use (Collier 1955b; Ford 1949). From my perspective, the presence or absence of Virú-Gallinazo or Moche ceramics in a given context is therefore not reliable enough to use as a sole index to pass judgment regarding the nature of the relations between the site studied and the Moche state(s). The recur-rence of Moche style ceramics was potentially dependent on the access of the local authority to specialized artisans skilled in this style, on the functional characteristics of the context (for example, production site, public space, workshop, storage house, a ceremonial space for offerings or sacrifices, or a dwelling), and on the status or rank of the user. I believe that distinctive Moche ceremonial dress and vessels were at the disposal of anyone who was considered a full-fledged member of the coastal Moche society, so long as the local specialized output and scant exchanges were able to satisfy the demand of the valley’s population. Everything seems to indicate that several major transformations of a political and social nature took place in the area south of the Pampa de Paiján between the fifth and the sixth centuries ce. The centers in the Moche and Chicama Valleys took on their monumental and urban characteristics at this time. The technical developments in ceramics, metallurgy, textiles, and painting gave rise to new pos-sibilities in the rendition of figurative images. Elaborate mythical and ritual scenes transmitted the image of a complex world, built on a fragile balance between the supernatural forces of this and the other world, symbolized by the constant oppo-sition between the two pairs of male warrior deities (Makowski 2003, 2004). The scene of the “Revolt of the Objects,” wherein the female deity is the main pro-tagonist, seems to allude to this principle (Makowski 1996a; Quilter 1997; see Uceda this volume: Figure 10). Benson (2003) believes this worldview—in which the ancient ruling god of the netherworld (Campana and Morales 1997) was dis-placed by the shining sky deity—had been recently introduced because of political changes. It is possible that a territorial state did manage to control the area between the


Chicama and Huarmey Valleys (Castillo and Donnan 1994a; Billman 1999; Shi-mada 1994a). In contrast, little is known of the events that took place in the North-ern Moche area until well into the seventh century ce. It is possible that the two areas, North and South, underwent cultural changes and political integration at different rates and in different periods. This is suggested by the evidence regard-ing the two frontiers in the Piura and Huarmey Valleys, respectively, and the 14C dates attributed to the main known centers. Despite this complex history—and a certain variety in architectural forms, substyles, and design notwithstanding—the people of the Moche world seem to have shared the same rites and deities, simi-lar ceremonial sequences, and a common view of society and power. Castillo (n.d. [1991]), Donnan (this volume), and Hocquenghem (1987) have rightly pointed out that iconographic unity gives consistency to the definition of the Moche culture. It can be empirically shown that the images found North and South, and created at the beginning or the end of the chronological sequence, evoke the same narratives, protagonists, and activities. The 700 years that the Moche culture existed constitute a vast expanse of time. In a comparable time span, several modern states have collapsed and some were even reborn, empires have fallen apart, and many city-states or political leagues have lost their independence. The fragility of archaic states and the dynamism of the mechanisms they used to adapt to varying conditions are well known (Claes-sen and Skalnik 1978a, 1978b; Feinman and Marcus 1998; Yoffee 1997). I therefore do not believe that one single form of organization of power and space, and a fixed territory with a continuous border, can be ascribed to all manifestations of the Moche culture. All three types of polities that students of Moche culture have in mind—a city-state, an expansive state, and a religious confederation of indepen-dent chiefdoms—may have existed in certain areas and at certain moments (see Quilter 2002). As chronological frameworks free themselves of a priori judgments and become supported by ever-more solid stratigraphic evidence and reliable 14C dates, we will come to a greater understanding of this complex history.

Note1 The Castillo de Ampanú was probably built in an epoch related to the Patazca

phase of the Santa Valley (Wilson 1995, 1997). Its use in the Early Intermediate Period is not clear.

administrative centers: in hegemonic strate-gies, 226–227; Huaca Santa Clara as, 228, 235, 239, 242–244; in territorial states, 247–248

adobe bricks: at Huaca de la Luna, 166, 168; at Huaca Santa Clara, 230–232; at Huancaco, 210; marked, 148; prevalence of, 17; stan-dardization of, 166

agriculture: in expansionism, 268, 274; in Jequetepeque Valley, 91–92; Maya versus Moche, 17; in Moche Valley, 268; patronage in, 196–197; sites damaged by, 112, 116, 117; in social formation, 159–160. See also irrigation systems

Aguateca, 321Alexander the Great, 78allegiances: Maya, 313; Moche, 47Alva, Walter, 7, 34, 49, 51ancestors, 23, 41Anders, Martha, 66animal symbolism: at Huaca Cao Viejo, 23,

123; at Huaca de la Luna, 23; Maya versus Moche, 22–23

anthropomorphic figures: at Huaca Cao Viejo, 123–124; at Huaca de la Luna, 150–151

archaeology: foreign versus Peruvian, 7, 8; in history of Moche studies, 1, 4–9

architectural models, 24architectural renovation: of Huaca de la Luna,

18, 149–150, 168–169, 170; ritual significance of, 169

architecture, Moche, 159–180; on ceramics, 286; diffusion of, 317; and ethnic identity, 316–318; versus Maya architecture, 17, 18–22; Middle Moche, 185–188; Northern versus Southern, 174–177; onion-like

construction in, 8; shared in multiple sites, 173; typology of, 285–286, 310–311. See also public architecture; specific sites and building types

Arnold, Dean E., 77, 80Arnold, Philip J., III, 45art history, in Moche studies, 1, 6–7art production. See workshopsart works, Greek, 77–79art works, Maya, 17–27; animal symbolism in,

22–23; ceramics, 18–19, 31, 33; kings in, 28, 31, 39–40; versus Moche art, 17–27; murals, 20, 22, 27, 30, 321; portrayal of artists in, 35–36; sculpture, 17–22; variation in style of, 318–319

art works, Moche: versus Maya art, 17–27; in museums, xi, 1; Northern versus Southern, 34; portrayal of artists in, 35–36; religious meanings of, 318–320; Sacrifice Ceremony in, 47–48; sociopolitical reconstruction based on, 77–80. See also specific types

artifacts, Moche: history of studies of, 1–9; as proof of expansionism, 257. See also specific types

artists and artisans: at Huacas de Moche, 156, 157; independent versus dependent, 156, 157; portrayal in art works, 35–36; in power system, 35; social identity of, 80; status of, 35–36, 80, 157

asymmetric power, 182–183Athens, 78–79Aztec, 180n1, 318–319Aztec Triple Alliance, 248, 250, 319, 321

bags, fabric, 233, 235ballgames, 27–28

Index

373

374 Index

bats, 22–23Bawden, Garth, 6, 35, 135, 286, 307–308beans, 23, 46n4Bennett, Wendell C., 174, 224, 232–234Benson, Elizabeth P., xiii, 17–45, 140, 283, 304,

310, 313, 318, 321, 322Berezkin, Yuri, 79Billman, Brian R., 41, 181–199, 313Binford, Lewis, xiiiBinford, Sally, xiiiblack-on-white painting, 190blackware, at Huancaco, 215, 216, 219blood, from human sacrifice, 56–58, 155Bonampak (Mexico), murals at, 20, 22, 27, 30Bonavia, Duccio, 296, 299bones: Maya versus Moche treatment of,

25–27; from Sacrifice Ceremony, 62, 65Bourget, Steve, 33, 153, 175, 201–222, 227, 246,

271, 284, 308, 311, 312, 322Briceño Rosario, Jesús, 34Burger, Richard, 319Burial Theme, 123, 318burials, Maya, 11–12, 23–27burials, Moche: DNA analysis of teeth from,

74–75, 76; elite, 11–12, 25–27, 187, 188, 287; female, 37; history of studies of, 6; location of, 287; versus Maya, 23–27; offerings in, 25–27, 188; ceramic, 188–191; of rulers, 287–288, 314–315; and single-state theory, 11–12; versus Virú burials, 239–240. See also tombs; specific sites

burials, Virú/Gallinazo, 74–75, 76, 239burning activities, at Huaca Cao Viejo, 124

Cacaxtla (Mexico), 30calendars, 18, 169Callejón, 224Campo Sicap, 112canals. See irrigation systems; specific canalscane casing, 239cántaros, 189, 190Canziani Amico, José, 159–180Cao, tomb of Señora de, 123–124, 125, 127,

129captives: kings as, 28, 30; of Maya, 27–31; of

Moche, 29–30, 56–58Carneiro, Robert L., 286Casma Valley, 173Castillo B., Luis Jaime, 1–16, 18, 42, 49,

83–108, 155, 305, 307, 308, 313, 316, 322Castillo de Ampanú, 296, 305n1catfish motif, 123, 129, 205, 241, 245

cave burials, 118cemeteries, isolated, in Chicama Valley, 114,

118. See also burialscenters. See administrative centers; ceremonial

centers; specific sitescentralization: in Jequetepeque Valley,

87–88, 89, 104, 105; in multiple-states mod-el, 86, 87–88; Northern versus Southern, 171–173, 206, 308; in Santa Valley, 276; and territoriality, 171–173. See also single-state model

ceramic molds, 191, 276, 281ceramic production: Early Moche versus

Late Moche, 281; in Moche Valley, transformation of, 191–193; in Santa Valley, 276. See also workshops

ceramics, cultures identified by, 201, 281–283, 288, 304, 312, 316–317

ceramics, Maya, 18–19, 31, 33ceramics, Moche: architecture portrayed on,

286; background scenes of, 33; as burial offerings, 188–191; distribution of, 80, 139, 144, 283, 319; and ethnic identity, 281–283, 316–318; five-phase chronol-ogy of, 10, 12, 34, 133, 201–203, 280, 303; Gallinazo ceramics coexisting with, 73, 317; and Gallinazo-Moche sociopoliti-cal relationship, 73–74; history of studies of, 1; iconography of, 201; identification of Moche sites through, 201–203, 283, 288, 304, 312, 316–317; kings on, 31–32; versus Maya ceramics, 18–19; Northern versus Southern, 11, 34, 205; in political economy, 188–193, 198; portraiture in, 39–40, 242–244, 284, 321; ritual functions of, 283–284; and single-state theory, 10–13; sociopolitical reconstruction based on, 79–80; variation in, 317; versus Virú/Gallinazo style, 281–282, 302, 317; warfare on, 29–30, 283–284. See also specific sites, valleys, and types of ceramics

ceramics, Vicús: versus Moche ceramics, 317; phases of, 11; in Piura Valley, 11, 288–296; and political organization models, 11–12

ceramics, Virú/Gallinazo, 190; coexistence with Moche ceramics, 73, 317; decline of, 281; and ethnic identity, 281–282; at Huancaco, 207, 212, 215–219; versus Moche style, 281–282, 302, 317; and Moche-Gallinazo sociopolitical relationship, 73–74; in origins of Moche, 307–308; in

Index 375

Piura Valley, 288–296; and political organization models, 12; use of term, 251n2

ceramics, Virú-Moche, 281ceremonial activities. See ritual practicesceremonial centers: in Chicama Valley, 110,

112, 118–121, 127–128; functions of, 106, 108; in Jequetepeque Valley, 83, 93, 106, 108

ceremonial structures: in Chicama Valley, 116, 117; in Jequetepeque Valley, 99–101; in Moche Valley, 185–188, 198

Ceremonial Wells (El Brujo), 123Cerro Blanco, 132, 162Cerro Catalina, 99, 103, 105Cerro Cementerio, 228, 232Cerro Chepén, 99, 100, 102, 105Cerro Colina, 266Cerro Compositan, 209, 222Cerro Grande, 128Cerro Mayal, 116, 117, 191–192Cerro Oreja, 181, 186, 189Cerro Pampa Grande, 179Cerro Portachuelo, 128Cerro Sajino, 235Cerro Sechín, 319Chafán canal, 95, 104Chamán River, 91, 93, 97, 105Chamán sector: development of, 91, 93; irriga-

tion of, 91, 93, 97, 104–105; Moche expan-sion into, 101–105

Chan Chan: architecture of, 179–180; history of studies of, 6–7; independent artisans at, 156

Chan Chan–Moche Valley Project, 6–7Chancay River, 161Chang, Kwang-Chih, 309Chapdelaine, Claude, 36, 71, 74, 226, 245,

252–279charisma, 41chaupiyunga zone, 70, 71, 82n1Chavín. See CupisniqueChavín de Huantar, 319, 320Chepén canal, 95, 104–105Chicama River, 128, 161Chicama Valley, 110–131; ceremonial structures

in, 116, 117; city planning in, 128–129; clas-sification of sites in, 111–118; continuum of sites in, 127; as core of Moche state, 206; cultural chronology for, 258; damage to sites in, 112, 116, 117; El Niño in, 117, 122, 126, 129–131; history of studies of, 9; isolated sites in, 114, 118; map of, 111; power in, 110, 120, 130; principal settlements in, 113, 116,

128; residential sites in, 114, 116–118; state religion in, 63; territoriality in, 171–173; urban centers of, 171. See also specific sites

Chicamita, 118chicha, 145–147, 163Chichén Itzá (Mexico), 21chiefdoms: in development of Moche state,

252–254; evidence of, 34, 310; versus incipient states, 252, 277, 286; in Jequetepeque Valley, 98; origins of theory of, 34; problems with category of, 45; Spanish explorers on, 4

Chiguala, Jorge, 93Childe, Gordon V., 281Chimor, kingdom of, 3Chimú: artisans of, 156; El Niño and, 271;

emergence of, 147, 158; history of studies of, 4, 6; irrigation systems of, 196, 197; political economy of, 196, 197; territorial state of, 247–248

Chira River, 161Cholula, 309Christianity: ritual practices of, 55; ritual

vestments of, 68–69; symbols of, 59city blocks, of Huacas de Moche urban

nucleus, 145, 147, 156–157city planning, 159–180; autonomy in, 162;

in Chicama Valley, 128–129; in Galindo, 177–178; in Huacas de Moche urban nucleus, 145, 147, 162–165, 309; Northern versus Southern, 175–177; in Pampa Grande, 178–179

city-states: definition of, 247; Greek, 78, 104, 248; hegemonic, 247–248; Moche organization as, 34, 249–250; relations with neighbors, 247–248; systems of, 247–248

Ciudad de Dios, 128, 190, 192ciudadelas, 179clans, 34climatic crises. See El Niño; natural disastersclothing: in art works, 22; in Sacrifice

Ceremony, 51, 55, 68–69, 318Coe, Michael D., 36coercion: in political economy, 184; in power,

9; in Santa Valley occupation, 269, 274coevolution, of Moche and other cultures,

70–74coexistence, 70–77; at El Castillo, 258, 268;

at Huaca Santa Clara, 272; of Moche and Gallinazo cultures, 70, 72–77; of Moche

and other cultures, 70–73, 205; in Piura

376 Index

coexistence (continued ) Valley, 11, 72; in Santa Valley, 71, 226,

260–261; in Virú Valley, 71, 73–74Cohen, Beth, 79Collier, Donald, 224colonial–early republican era, 1, 3–4colonization, in Santa Valley, 226communication, mass, in political economy,

186, 193, 198–199condors, 23conquistadors, 3construction blocks. See city blocksCopán, 25–27, 28corn, 194corporate architecture, at Huaca Santa Clara,

232, 235–239cosmic model, four-world-directions, 22cosmovision, 112crafts, as sign of power, 35cross, in Christianity, 59Cross, Temple of the (Palenque), 40, 41Culebras Valley, 296–303cultural drift, in Jequetepeque Valley, 83,

106cultures: ceramics used for identifying,

201, 281–283, 288, 312; coevolution of, 70–74

Cupisnique: in origins of Maya, 23; in origins of Moche, 10–11, 23

curacas, 196, 198, 287curacazogos. See chiefdoms

dancing, 32, 61, 69n3Day, Kent, 6death, transformation in beliefs about,

189–190. See also ancestors; burialsDeeds, Eric E., 194deer hunts, 22, 25, 31defensive structures. See fortificationsdemographic crises, 268–269Dillehay, Tom D., 31, 35, 37, 101, 286, 307, 311,

312, 313, 316dippers, 201, 202, 212, 213direct rule: in Santa Valley, 273, 278; in

territorial states, 227, 247–248dismemberment, in Sacrifice Ceremony, 58,

59, 63, 65DNA analysis, of Gallinazo-Moche relation-

ship, 74–75, 76dogs, 23domestic wares: in identification of Moche

sites, 203; transformation of, 189–191

dominant-subordinate political relationships, 70–71, 81, 322

domination, resistance to, 183, 184Donnan, Christopher B., xiii–xiv, 7, 12, 23, 34,

36, 42, 47–69, 153, 188, 189, 191, 205, 226, 246, 254, 255, 260, 276, 283, 305, 314, 316, 318, 320, 321, 322

Dos Cabezas: architecture of, 175; bat imagery at, 22–23; burials at, 127; decline of, 37; ver-sus Huaca Cao Viejo, 127; location of, 119; origins of Moche at, 90; relationship with other sites, 38; and single-state theory, 12

double-headed serpents, 22drought, 31. See also El Niño; natural disastersduality, at El Brujo Complex, 120, 130, 173dwellings. See residential sitesdynasties, possibility of existence of, 37

Earle, Timothy K., 282Early Intermediate Period: Huaca Santa Clara

in, 229; Jequetepeque Valley in, 88–89; Moche dominance of, 205

Early Moche: architecture in, 186; burials in, 189; irrigation in, 194–196; Jequetepeque Valley in, 89, 90, 105; versus Late Moche, 300–305; rituals of, 187; Vicús ceramics in, 11; Virú cultural transformation in, 302–304

Early Moche ceramics, 190–191; ceremonial versus utilitarian, 281; in Culebras Valley, 296, 298; Northern versus Southern, 205; in Piura Valley, 288, 289–291; production of, 281

Early Moche-Vicús ceramics, 11earthquakes, at Huaca Cao Viejo, 129–130ecological events: in Santa Valley, 270–272.

See also natural disasterseconomy. See political economyeffigy vessels, 24, 36El Brujo, 110–131; architecture of, 112, 119–121;

ceramics at, 128; as ceremonial center, 110, 112, 118–121, 127–128; ceremonies held at, 127, 130–131; city planning in, 309; duality at, 120, 130, 173; elite at, seat of, 127–128, 130; graffiti at, 20, 120, 121; Huaca de la Luna’s relationship with, 206; versus Huacas de Moche, 39, 173; location of, 112, 118–119; map of, 115; murals at, 206; power at, 110, 120, 130; relationship with other sites, 39, 128, 206; ritual importance of, 127, 130; unique features of, 119–120; view from, 119. See also Huaca Cao Viejo; Huaca El Brujo

Index 377

El Brujo Complex Archaeological Program, 110

El Castillo: burials at, 74–75, 262, 278; ceramics at, 254, 260, 276; coexistence of cultures at, 258, 268; construction sequence of, 261–265, 272; cultural chronology for, 257–258; DNA analysis at, 74–75; excava-tions at, 255–257; map of, 263; nature of Moche occupation of, 260–265, 272–273; as regional center, 260–265, 272–273; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 61; state religion at, 61–63

El Degollador, 150–151El Niño: in Chicama Valley, 117, 122, 126,

129–131; and fall of Moche state, 177; and Huacas de Moche, 140, 153, 154, 177, 270; and Huancaco, 211, 222; in Jequetepeque Valley, 92; in Santa Valley, 270; in site establishment and decline, 37–38; and warfare, 31

Eling, Herbert, 94, 98, 105, 108–109n1elite, Greek, 79elite, Maya, 18, 25; burials of, 11–12elite, Moche: art style of, 318–320; artisans as,

157; burial of, 25–27, 187, 188, 287; at El Brujo Complex, 127–128, 130; in genesis of political organization, 13–14; at Huacas de Moche, 134–135, 140, 147, 156, 157; in Jequetepeque Valley, 88, 106; lineage of, 286–288; versus Maya elite, 25; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 55–56, 69n1; in Santa Valley, 278; social role of, 287; warriors as, 55–56

elite, Virú, 237–242empires, territorial states as, 247environmental disasters. See natural disastersenvironmental stress, and warfare, 31equality, in Moche Valley political economy,

198ethnic identity, art style and, 281–283, 316–318Evans, Clifford, Jr., 38, 42, 224, 225, 286expansionism. See territorial expansionismeye, left, 123–124

fabric. See textilesface-neck jars: at Huaca Santa Clara, 242;

in Jequetepeque Valley, 93, 109n3; Moche versus Gallinazo, 73

Faclo canal, 89factionalism: in Jequetepeque Valley, 83,

89, 99, 101, 104–108; in Northern Moche region, 252; periods of regional, 87–88

fanged figures, at Huaca Cao Viejo, 122, 123, 125

Farfán, 95, 105Fash, Barbara, 316, 321Fash, William L., 306–322field archaeology: foreign versus Peruvian, 7,

8; in history of Moche studies, 1, 4–9Figure A, tomb of (Sipán), 49, 51, 52, 63Figure B, tomb of (Sipán), 49, 53, 63Figure C, tomb of (San José de Moro), 49, 51,

54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 68figurines, at Huancaco, 215, 218fineline ceramics, 190–191, 319–320fineware ceramics, Moche: in identification of

sites, 201–203; Northern versus Southern, 205

First Moche Period, at Huacas de Moche, 134–136, 140, 157

Flannery, Kent V., 309flaring bowls, 201, 202floreros, 189, 190, 244, 245Flowery Wars, 321Fogel, Heidy, 228–229, 230Foliated Cross Tablet, Temple of the

(Palenque), 19food storage, at Huaca Santa Clara, 232–235Ford, James A., 220, 221, 224, 311, 316–317foreign archaeologists, 7, 8fortifications, 35; in Jequetepeque Valley, 99,

101–104, 105; Maya versus Moche, 31; in Santa Valley, 302; in Virú Valley, 299

fortresses. See fortificationsfour-world-directions cosmic model, 22fragmentation. See factionalismFranco Jordán, Régulo, 18, 63, 110–131free market system, 163frontiers, Moche, 288–305; difficulty of

defining, 280, 288; northern, 288–299, 305; southern, 296–300, 305

Galindo: architecture of, 177–178; establish-ment of, 38; relationship with other sites, 38

Gallinazo ceramics. See ceramics, Virú/Gallinazo

Gallinazo culture. See Virú cultureGallinazo Group site: abandonment of, 206;

architecture of, 233–235; as capital, 277; and El Castillo, 265; Moche takeover of, 206; storage facilities at, 233–235

Gallinazo Negative, 224, 229, 242, 251n2Gallinazo phase: architecture in, 186; burials

in, 189; in Huancaco, 207, 211, 220; rituals of, 187

Gallito Ciego Irrigation Project, 98

378 Index

Gálvez Mora, César, 63, 110–131Geertz, Clifford, 315genetic isolation, in Jequetepeque Valley, 106genetic similarity: of Gallinazo versus Moche,

74–75, 76; of sacrifice victims, 155geographical distribution, of state religion,

60–68geography, in Moche political structure, 37Ghezzi, Iván, 295Giersz, Milosz, 296glyphs, Maya, 27, 30gods: at Huacas de Moche, 140, 150–152; kings

associated with, 40–42; patron, 318, 319, 320Golte, Jürgen, 35goods, exchange of, at Huacas de Moche,

144–147, 156, 163, 165goods, luxury, warfare for, 29goods, mobilization of, in political economy,

182, 183goods, production of: at Huacas de Moche,

136, 145–147, 156, 157, 163; transformation of, 191–193

graffiti: at El Brujo Complex, 20, 120, 121; Maya versus Moche, 20–22

Greek city-states, 78, 104, 248Greek pottery, sociopolitical reconstruction

based on, 77–79Grube, Nikolai, 27, 31Guad-12, 273Guad-192, 273Guadalupe canal, 95, 104, 105Guadalupito: architecture of, 175; burials at,

278; ceramics at, 254, 260, 266, 276; con-struction sequence of, 266; cultural chro-nology for, 258, 260; ecological events in, 270–271; excavations at, 255, 257; irrigation in, 274; layout of buildings at, 266, 267; lo-cation of, 276; nature of Moche occupation of, 266, 273; population of, 273; as regional center, 226, 266, 270, 273–274, 276

Gumerman, George, IV, 34

Haas, Jonathan, 183Hacienda San José: ceramics at, 276; ex-

cavations at, 255, 257; nature of Moche occupation of, 266; population of, 273; as secondary center, 273–274

haplogroups, 74–75, 82n2haplotypes, 75, 82n2headdresses: of kings, 31; as lineage symbols,

36–37, 46n5; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 48, 49, 60, 68

headgear, of warriors, in art, 29hegemonic city-states, 247–248hegemony, Moche: administrative centers in,

226–227; in Southern region, 223, 225–227, 250; strategy of, 225–226, 248–250; in Virú Valley, 225–226, 247

Helms, Mary W., 35Hero Twins, 32, 36Herodotus, 77, 78heterarchy, 285, 313hierarchies: political, definitions of, 309;

social, 170hills: of Chicama Valley, 112, 116, 119; and

damage to sites, 112Hocquenghem, Anne Marie, 18, 48–49, 153,

283, 305Holmquist, Ulla, 155horizon, cultural, 223huaca(s): construction of, 185–186; definition

of, 16n1; excavations of, 7–8, 9; history of studies of, 7–8, 9. See also specific huacas

Huaca Cao Viejo, 121–127; animal symbolism at, 23, 123; architecture of, 121–122, 173; area between Huaca El Brujo and, 112, 116; burials at, 122–126, 131; as city-state, 34; construction sequence of, 121, 129, 130; El Niño and, 122, 126, 129–130, 131; graffiti at, 20, 121; versus Huaca de la Luna, 39, 127, 173; human sacrifice at, 187; iconography at, 122–124; location of, 112, 119; murals at, 23, 123–124, 125; northern versus southern influence on, 34; orientation of buildings, 120, 121; versus other ceremonial sites, 126–127; public access to, 186–187; sacred spaces of, 121–122; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 63; state religion at, 63; war motifs at, 29–30, 122–123, 124

Huaca China, 257, 269Huaca Colorada, 93Huaca Cortada. See Huaca El BrujoHuaca de la Cruz: architecture of, 286;

burials at, 6, 225, 286; ceramics at, 225; gods associated with humans at, 42; Moche hege-monic strategy at, 225–226; Moche presence at, 225, 246, 247, 250

Huaca de la Luna, 132–158; animal symbolism at, 23; architecture of, 149–151, 165–170, 173, 284; burials at, 127; as capital, 5, 9; ceramics at, 202; Ceremonial Patio of, 166; construction sequence of, 134, 135, 137, 140, 185–186, 197; El Brujo’s relationship with,

Index 379

206; establishment of, 181; financing for, 197; First Moche Period at, 134–136; func-tions of, 163, 166, 169; history of studies of, 5, 133; versus Huaca Cao Viejo, 39, 127, 173; versus Huancaco, 211; human sacrifice at, 151–155, 187; iconography at, 150–152, 166; layout of buildings at, 149, 166, 167; loca-tion of, 132; Maya influence on, 18; murals at, 21, 150–152, 205, 206; New Temple of, 140, 143; Old Temple of, 134, 136, 140–142, 149–152; orientation of, 166; Plaza of, 166; in political economy, 185–186; power at, 134, 140; public access to, 186–187; remodeling and renovation of, 18, 149–150, 168–169, 170; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 62–63; Second Moche Period at, 140–148; in Southern Moche state, role of, 149–152; state religion at, 61–63; war motifs at, 29–30

Huaca de la Luna Archaeological Project (Proyecto Arqueológico Huaca de la Luna), 110, 163

Huaca del Sol: as capital, 5, 9; construction sequence of, 134, 135, 138, 140, 142, 185–186, 197; elites at, 140; establishment of, 181; fi-nancing for, 197; functions of, 148, 163, 309; history of studies of, 3, 4, 5, 134; location of, 132; in political economy, 185–186; Second Moche Period at, 140–148, 156; secular power at, 140; size of, 140, 181, 309

Huaca El Brujo (Huaca Cortada): area between Huaca Cao Viejo and, 112, 116; location of, 112, 119; orientation toward ocean, 120

Huaca el Pueblo, 206Huaca Facho, 65–66Huaca Fortaleza, 178, 179Huaca la Merced, 73Huaca Letrada, 73Huaca Prieta, 115, 119Huaca Rosario, 117Huaca San Pedro, 273, 274Huaca Santa Clara, 227–250; as administrative

center, 228, 235, 239, 242–244; architecture of, 230–244; burials at, 239–241; ceramics at, 229–230, 232–233, 242–247; coexistence of cultures at, 272; corporate buildings at, 232, 235–239; dating of Virú occupation, 228–230, 251n3; elite at, 237–242; excava-tions at, 227–228; versus Huancaco, 212, 219, 220, 245–246; location of, 228, 239; Moche presence at, 227, 228, 244–247; residential sites at, 232; storage facilities of,

232–235, 244; textiles at, 233, 235, 241, 243; Virú style at, 227, 229

Huaca Santa Rosa, 81Huacas de Moche, 132–158; artists’ status in,

36; as capital, 5, 9, 33–34, 249, 252; ceram-ics at, 140, 144, 145; collapse of, 177, 271; control of production at, 136, 145–147, 156, 157, 163; versus El Brujo Complex, 39, 173; El Niño and, 140, 153, 154, 177, 270; estab-lishment of, 181, 257; First Moche Period at, 134–136, 140, 157; and Galindo, 38; history of studies of, 5, 6, 133–134; iconography at, 140, 150–152; location of, 132, 162; maps of, 133, 136, 142; name of, 200n1; orientation of buildings, 120; power at, 140; relation-ship with other sites, 38–39; as religious center, 33; religious shift at, 140; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 61–63; Second Moche Period at, 134, 140–148, 155–156, 157; secular power at, 140, 142, 147, 156, 158; social and politi-cal shift at, 140–148, 155–156; state religion at, 61–63; theocratic power at, 134–136, 140, 142–144, 162; urban class at, 134–135, 142–144. See also Huaca de la Luna; Huaca del Sol

Huacas de Moche urban nucleus (city of Moche): abandonment of, 177; architecture of, 132, 162–165; burials in, 188; ceramics in, 203; city blocks of, 145, 147, 156–157; city planning in, 145, 147, 162–165, 309; construction sequence of, 134, 135, 140, 141; definition of, 162; establishment of, 257; excavations of, 134; versus Huancaco, 220; identification of Moche culture at, 203; location of, 162; maps of, 133, 136, 142, 164; residential sites in, 135, 139, 144–147, 163, 190, 220; Second Moche Period at, 140–148; streets of, 163–165; in territorial expansion-ism, 170–171, 252; workshops in, 136, 145, 147, 156, 163, 191; zoning in, 165

Huancaco, 201–222; abandonment of, 174, 211, 222; architecture of, 175, 207–211, 284, 311, 317; ceramics at, 207, 211–221, 227, 245–246, 283, 317; construction sequence of, 206–211, 222; as culture versus site, 219–222; duration of occupation of, 220, 222; establishment of, 206, 220, 222; excavations at, 207–209, 227; under Gallinazo, 174, 206; Moche presence in, 206, 209, 222, 227, 312; Moche style at, 212, 215, 221, 317; palace sector of, 175, 209, 311; as regional capital, 174, 207, 211, 225, 227; residential sites at, 207, 208,

380 Index

Huancaco (continued ) 220; size of, 206–207; Virú/Gallinazo style

at, 174, 207, 212, 215–219, 227Huancaco ceramic style, 224, 227, 245–246Huancaco Decorated ceramics, 221Huancaco Period, 220–222Huarmey Valley, 173, 296, 297, 299human figures, Maya versus Moche, 20human sacrifice, Maya, 27, 30, 31human sacrifice, Moche, 320–321; at Huaca

Cao Viejo, 187; at Huaca de la Luna, 151–155, 187; in Jequetepeque Valley, 101; methods of, 153–155; as mythic versus performed ritual, 49–51, 153; political role of, 284; as primary religious ritual, 47; victims of, 29–30, 155; warfare and, 30, 155. See also Sacrifice Ceremony

Hunahpu, 36hunting motifs, 22, 25, 31

iconography, archaeological, 1. See also specific symbols

iconography, Maya, 17–27iconography, Moche, 17–27; in ceramic

phases, 201; history of studies of, 1, 6–7; at Huaca Cao Viejo, 122–124; at Huacas de Moche, 140, 150–152, 166; Northern versus Southern, 34

identity, ethnic, art style and, 281–283, 316–318

inbreeding, in Jequetepeque Valley, 106Inca, 247–248, 286indirect rule: in city-states, 248, 249–250; in

Santa Valley, 273, 278Inscriptions, Temple of the (Palenque), 42–44irrigation systems: future research on, 313–314;

in Moche Valley, 171, 173, 181, 193–197; and multiple-states theory, 14, 34–35; Northern versus Southern, 171, 173; in political eco-nomic development, 193–197; power linked to, 313–314; in Santa Valley, 270, 271, 274, 275; and social formation, 160; transforma-tion of, 193–197. See also Jequetepeque Valley irrigation systems

isolated sites: in Chicama Valley, 114, 118; and territoriality, 171

Italian city-states, 248Itzamná (god), 20

Jackson, Margaret A., 34, 37, 192jade, 17jaguars, 22

jars, 201, 202; face-neck, 73, 93, 109n3, 242; Gallinazo versus Moche, 73; at Huaca Santa Clara, 230, 242; at Huancaco, 212, 214; in Jequetepeque Valley, 93, 109n3

Jatanca, 93Jequetepeque River, 104Jequetepeque Valley, 83–108; agricultural lands

in, 91–92; architecture in, 175; capitals of, 98; centralization in, 87–88, 89, 104, 105; ceram-ics in, 93–95, 101, 104, 109n3; ceremonial centers in, 83, 93, 106, 108; cultural chronol-ogy for, 258; cultural drift in, 83, 106; expan-sionism in, 89–95, 101–105; factionalism and fragmentation in, 83, 89, 99, 101, 104–108; fortifications in, 99, 101–104, 105; Gallinazo culture in, 89; history of studies of, 8; maps of, 84, 90–92; modern districts of, 97–98; opportunism in, 85, 88, 105–108; origins of Moche in, 90; versus other regions, 83–85, 88–89; residential sites in, 99, 104; ritual practices in, 83, 84, 88, 106–108; settlement patterns in, 89, 93, 95, 99–106, 311; social stratification in, 88; state religion in, 63; ter-ritorial units established in, 83, 98; territorial units integrated in, 83–85; territoriality in, 171; warfare in, 101. See also specific sites

Jequetepeque Valley irrigation systems: devel-opment of, 14, 89, 91–95, 104–105, 109n1; duration of, 313–314; interaction of political organization and, 83, 92, 98, 104–106; versus Moche Valley irrigation, 171, 173; redundant, 95–98, 104

katun, 18Kerr, Justin, 36kings, Maya, 27–33; ancestors’ power and,

41; in art works, 28, 31, 39–40; as captives, 27–28, 30; gods associated with, 40–42; in-vestiture of, 31–32; legitimacy of, 27; lineage of, 27, 36–37; versus Moche kings, 39–44; palaces of, 33; ritual performance by, 31–32; succession of, 37; thrones of, 31; warfare among, 27–28

kings, Moche, 31–33; in art works, 39–40; as captives, 30; gods associated with, 40–42; versus Maya kings, 39–44; palaces of, 33; priests in competition with, 39–41; ritual performance by, 31–32; thrones of, 31

Kolata, Alan, 249, 310, 311, 313Kosok, Paul, 308Kossinna, Gustaf, 281Kroeber, Alfred, 4–5, 308

Index 381

La Campanilla, 112La Leche Valley, 73La Mina, 12Labná (Mexico), 22, 24labor mobilization, in political economy, 182,

183; of Moche Valley, 186, 194–197Lambayeque Valley: architecture in, 178; coex-

istence of Gallinazo and Moche in, 73; cul-tural chronology for, 258; history of studies of, 8; sociopolitical organization in, 81; state religion in, 63–66; territorial contraction in, 101. See also specific sites

land management, 160land ownership, 160, 287Larco Hoyle, Rafael: on development of

Moche centers, 307; five-phase ceramic chronology of, 10, 12, 34, 133, 201–203, 280, 303; in history of Moche studies, 5–9, 16, 85–86; on human sacrifice, 153, 155; on Moche as single ethnic culture, 281; on Moche style, 316, 317; on rulers, 314; single-state theory of, 9–13

Late Gallinazo, 174, 230Late Moche: versus Early Moche, 300–305;

Jequetepeque Valley in, 89, 93, 99, 101, 104; territorial contractions in, 101; urbanism in, 177–180

Late Moche ceramics: in Culebras Valley, 296–297, 299, 300; in Jequetepeque Valley, 93, 94, 101, 109n3; versus Middle Moche ceramics, 93, 94; Northern versus Southern, 205; in Piura Valley, 288, 291–292; produc-tion of, 281

Late Moche-Vicús ceramics, 11Late Preceramic Period, 127leaders. See rulersleft eye, 123–124Licapa complex, 120Lima, Rafael Larco Herrera Museum in, 5, 6lineage: of elite, 286–288; of rulers, 36–37,

286–288, 314literacy, of Maya, 17, 44local populations, in political economy, 184Loma Negra: burials at, 11–12; looting at,

66; as Moche frontier, 280, 288; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 66–67; state religion at, 66–67

Loma Valverde, 288looting: of Guadalupito, 273; and history of

Moche studies, 8–9, 310; of Huaca Santa Clara, 235, 236, 239; of Loma Negra, 66; of Sipán, 7–8, 49

Los Algarrobales, 73Lumbreras, Luis G., 11Lurín, 295–296Lyon, Patricia, 49

Macabí Island, 119Mackey, Carol J., 6, 188, 189Maize God, 27Makowski Hanula, Krzysztof, 11, 155, 280–305,

310, 314, 317mallqui, 27mampuestos, 97, 105Manzanilla, Linda, 309“Marine Twin” (mural), 152marriage, 106Martin, Simon, 27, 31Martínez Compañón y Bujanda, Baltasar

Jaime, 3Masanca, 246mass communication, in political economy,

186, 193, 198–199Maya, 17–45; agriculture of, 17; architecture

of, 17, 18–22; art of (See art works); artists of, 35–36; cities of, 318–319; city-states of, 248; gaps in research on, 312–313; inter-relationships of sites, 38; literacy of, 17, 44; origins of, 23; priests of, 315–316; religion of, 23, 315, 318–319; trade by, 35; variation in style of, 318–319; women, 37

Maya political organization, 27–45; city-states in, 248; lack of unified, 27, 319; versus Moche political organization, 39–44, 313; as theocracy, 315–316; war in, 27–31. See also kings

Mayanga. See Huaca FachoMcClelland, Donna, 191, 316, 321Medical School of Japan, 155mesh fabric bags, 233, 235metalwork, 17, 144, 145Metropolitan Museum (New York), 66Middle Gallinazo, 230Middle Horizon, 88–89Middle Moche: burials in, 188–191; dates of,

200n3; expansionism in, 173, 223; irrigation in, 193–196; Jequetepeque Valley in, 89, 93, 99, 104, 105; Moche Valley in, 185–197; public architecture and rituals in, 185–188; Southern Moche state formed in, 185

Middle Moche ceramics: B type, 93; in burials, 188–191; in Jequetepeque Valley, 93–95, 104, 109n3; at Loma Negra, 12; in Moche Valley, 188–193; Northern versus Southern, 205;

382 Index

Middle Moche ceramics (continued ) transformation in production of, 191–193;

transformation in use of, 188–191; Vicús style, 11

Middle Moche-Vicús ceramics, 11migration, from Moche Valley to Santa Valley,

270–271, 273, 274military power, in political economy, 199.

See also warfare; warriorsMillaire, Jean-François, 12, 73, 188, 223–250Millon, Clara, 315mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis,

74–75, 76Moche (city). See Huacas de Moche urban

nucleusMoche (culture): art style in ethnic identity

of, 281–283, 316–318; climax of, 271; collapse of, 148, 157, 177–180; versus Mochica, use of terms, xvn1; name of, xvn1; origins and spread of, xi, 13–14, 307–308; public interest in, xi; regional chronologies of, 3, 257–258; Virú culture in origins of, 10, 13, 14, 304

Moche I ceramics, 10, 203Moche II: ceramics in, 10, 203; Santa Valley

in, 255Moche III, Santa Valley in, 255, 257–265, 269,

272–273, 277–279Moche III ceramics, 10, 11; at Huancaco, 212,

221; in Santa Valley, 260, 261; stirrup-spout bottles, 203

Moche IV: duration of, 258, 260, 270; Santa Valley in, 258, 260, 266, 269, 273, 274, 277–279

Moche IV ceramics, 10, 11; expansionism and, 203; at Huaca de la Luna, 202; at Huaca Santa Clara, 245–246; at Huancaco, 211, 212, 221; Northern versus Southern, 205; stirrup-spout bottles, 203

Moche V ceramics, 10, 73, 203, 205Moche River, 132, 162Moche studies: consensus in, 306–307; future

of, 310–314, 320, 322; history of, xi–xiv, 1–9; recent discoveries in, vii, xi–xii, 322; review of literature, xiii–xiv

Moche Valley: agriculture in, 268; burials in, 188–191; ceramics in, 188–193; as core of Moche state, 206; cultural chronology for, 258; ecological events in, 270; history of studies of, 6–7; irrigation in, 171, 173, 181, 193–197; migration to Santa Valley from, 270–271, 273, 274; name of, xvn1; political economy in, emergence of, 181, 185–199;

public architecture and rituals in, 185–188; settlement patterns in, 181; social transformations in, 181; territorial contraction in, 101; territoriality in, 171. See also specific sites

Mochica, The (Benson), xiiiMochica, use of term, xvn1. See also MocheMochica canal, 194, 196Mocollope, 34, 112, 116, 117molds, ceramic, 191, 276, 281Montenegro, Jorge A., 72Montículo 1 (El Brujo), 120Montículo 2 (El Brujo), 120Montículo 3 (El Brujo), 120monumental sculpture, Moche versus Maya,

18–22moon animals, 123Moon Goddess, 20, 23, 42Moro canal, 194, 196Moseley, Michael E., 6, 77, 171, 194, 206, 226,

308mounds. See huaca(s)mountains, sacred, of Chicama Valley, 119,

128, 130mtDNA. See mitochondrial DNAMujica, Elías, xiiimultiple-states model of Moche organization,

xi, xii, 13–14; centralization in, 86, 87–88; Maya political organization and, 34–37, 44–45; stability in, 87; support for, 13–14, 34–37, 87–88; variations on theory, 34–35

Munich Vase, 320mural paintings, Maya, 20, 22, 27, 30, 321mural paintings, Moche, 20, 21; at El Brujo,

206; El Niño and, 129; at Huaca Cao Viejo, 23, 123–124, 125; at Huaca de la Luna, 21, 150–152, 205, 206; at Huacas de Moche, 140, 143, 166; Sacrifice Ceremony in, 60, 320; war motifs in, 29–30

Murra, John V., 71museums, Moche art in, xi, 1music, 32musical instruments, 190, 191

Nahua, 318–319Naranjo, 313narrative art, emergence of, 190–191natural disasters: in expansionism, 268–271; in

fall of Moche state, 177, 270; at Huaca Cao Viejo, 129–130; and political organization, 37–38; reorganization after, 270; in Santa Valley, 270–272. See also El Niño

Index 383

natural resources, warfare over, 29negative painting, 219negotiation: between cultures, 72; in

Jequetepeque Valley, 108; in Moche Valley, 198

Nepeña Valley: architecture in, 175; Moche expansion into, 173; as Moche frontier, 280, 288; Moche occupation of, 175, 272; state religion in, 60–61

Netherly, Patricia J., 35, 37, 39, 45networks, in political economy, 182, 183–184,

197–198New Fire renovation ceremony, 169, 180n1New York, Metropolitan Museum of, 66North Coast of Peru: coexistence of cultures

in, 72; genesis of political organization in, 9; maps of, 2, 50, 172, 204, 253; Moche as only culture in, 205, 207; sociopolitical organization of, 72–73; urbanism in, 162. See also Northern Moche region; Southern Moche region

Northern Moche region: art of, 34; border of, 148, 280, 288; centralization in, 171–173, 206, 308; ceramics of, 11, 34, 205; cultural chronology for, 3, 257–258; fragmentation in, 252; frontiers of, 288–299, 305; maps of, 2, 50, 172, 204, 253; public architecture of, 174–177; scholarly debate on, 148–149; social organization of, 81, 206; territoriality in, 171–174; valleys of, 252. See also specific sites and valleys

ocean, El Brujo Complex near, 112, 118–119octopus motif, 205oikumene, 319ollas, 93, 109n3Olmec, 23, 42, 45opportunism, political: definition of, 85, 108;

in Jequetepeque Valley, 85, 88, 105–108owls, 22, 93

Pacatnamú: burials at, 12; ceramics at, 12, 109n3; location of, 119; relationship with other sites, 38

Pachacamac, 4painting. See ceramics; mural paintingspalaces: of Huancaco, 175, 209, 311; Maya

versus Moche, 33Palenque (Mexico): Temple of the Cross, 40,

41; Temple of the Foliated Cross Tablet, 19; Temple of the Inscriptions, 42–44

Pampa de Paiján, 148, 205

Pampa Esperanza, 194Pampa Grande: architecture of, 177–179;

ceramics at, 73; coexistence of Gallinazo and Moche in, 73; relationship with other sites, 38; rise of, 38; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 66; state religion at, 66

Pampas de Jaguey, 128Pañamarca: architecture of, 175–176; cultural

chronology for, 272; as Moche frontier, 280, 288, 299; Sacrifice Ceremony in murals at, 60–61, 68, 176

Panamerican Highway, 119Panteón, 296, 299parcialidades, 196, 197Paredones building complex (El Brujo),

120–121patios, distribution of goods at, 157patrilinial succession, 37patron gods, 318, 319, 320patronage, 196–197penis-shaped spouts, 245persuasion, in political economy, 184Peruvian archaeologists, 7, 8Phases I–V. See Moche I–VPiedra de Molino, 10, 128Piedras Negras (Guatemala), 31, 32pilgrimages, to El Brujo Complex, 110, 128Pillsbury, Joanne, xiiiPiura Valley, 288–299; centers of power in,

292–295; coexistence of cultures in, 11, 72; development of traditions in, 14–15; Early Moche ceramics in, 288, 289–291; Gallinazo ceramics in, 288–296; history of studies of, 8, 292; Late Moche ceramics in, 288, 291–292; map of, 294; as Moche frontier, 280, 288–299; state religion in, 66–67; Vicús ceramics in, 11, 288–296

plainware ceramics, Moche, 189, 203political economy, in Moche Valley, 181–199;

burials in, 188–191; ceramics in, 188–193, 198; as core issue of studies, xii; definition of, 182; emergence of, 181, 185–199; forms of, 182; irrigation in, 193–197; mass commu-nication in, 186, 193, 198–199; organizations versus individuals in, 182–183; political reconstruction based on, 182–185; power relationships in, 182–184; public architec-ture and rituals in, 185–188, 198; regional spread of, 197–199

political organization, definition of, xiipolitical organization, Maya. See Maya politi-

cal organization

384 Index

political organization, Moche, 1–16; capital of, 5, 9; genesis of, 9–15; history of studies of, 1–9, 85–86; regional differences in, 87–88, 206, 308; regional divisions of, xii, 2; scholarly consensus on, 307–309; scholarly debate on, vii, 182, 306; two-state theory of, 34, 148–149. See also multiple-states model; single-state model

political power. See powerpolitical unity, 78–79politics, definition of, xiiPortachuelo de Charcape, 99, 103portraiture: in ceramics, 39–40, 242–244, 284,

321; Maya versus Moche, 23, 39–40; Virú, 242–244

pottery. See ceramicspower: asymmetric, 182–183; definition of, xii,

183; at El Brujo Complex, 110, 120, 130; his-tory of studies of, 148; at Huacas de Moche, 132, 134–136, 140, 142; irrigation and, 313–314; in Maya versus Moche culture, 18, 35; in political economic approach, 182–184; of priests, 314; in pyramids, 179; trade in, 35. See also theocratic power

power bases, 183, 184, 186Preceramic Period, 159, 168Presentation Theme. See Sacrifice Ceremonypriests, Maya, 315–316priests, Moche: burials of, 288; at El Brujo

Complex, 110; in governing apparatus, 314; at Huacas de Moche, 134–135; kings in competition with, 39–41; organizational structure of, 47; power of, 314; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 58; status of, 39–41

Proto-Chimú, 4Proulx, Donald A., 38provinces: in fall of Moche state, 271; Santa

Valley as, 277–279Proyecto Arqueológico Huaca de la Luna

(Huaca de la Luna Archaeological Project), 110, 163

Proyecto Santa de la Universidad de Montreal (PSUM), 255–257, 260, 261, 266, 273, 274, 276, 279

Przadka, Patrycja, 296PSUM. See Proyecto Santa de la Universidad

de Montrealpublic architecture: diffusion of Moche style

of, 317; emergence of, 148, 159; Huaca del Sol as, 148, 309; in Huacas de Moche urban nucleus, 163; marked abodes as evidence of, 148; in Moche Valley, transformation

of, 185–188, 198; Northern versus Southern, 174–177; in Preceramic Period, 159, 168

Pyramid of the Moon, 312Pyramid of the Sun, 312pyramids: Late Moche, 178–179; Northern

versus Southern, 174–177; political power in, 179

Quebrada Lacramarca, 255, 266, 269, 270, 273–274

Quebrada San Nicolás, 118, 128, 130Quebrada Santa María, 130Quillapampa, 296–299, 301, 302, 303Quilter, Jeffrey, 1–16, 33, 257, 307, 308, 314,

316, 319, 320Quiriguá, 28

Rafael Larco Herrera Museum (Lima), 5, 6rain. See El NiñoRamírez, Susan E., 72, 104, 287ramps, 175–176Recuay, 38, 70redware: at Huancaco, 212, 213, 214, 218, 221,

227; in Virú Valley, 224Reindel, Markus, 34relief sculpture, Maya, 19, 22, 24, 27–28religion, Maya, 23, 315, 318–319religion, Moche: in art works, 318–320; geo-

graphical distribution of, 60–68; Huacas de Moche as center of, 33; human sacrifice as primary ritual of, 47; versus Maya religion, 23; organizational structure of, 47, 68–69; origins of, 320; politics linked with, 23; standardized vestments in, 68–69; state, 58–69; symbols of, 59–67; unification of state through, 47, 69. See also Sacrifice Ceremony

renovation. See architectural renovationresidential sites: in Chicama Valley, 114,

116–118; in Gallinazo Group, 233–234; in Huaca Santa Clara, 232; in Huacas de Moche urban nucleus, 135, 139, 144–147, 163, 190, 220; in Huancaco, 207, 208, 220; in Jequetepeque Valley, 99, 104; in Moche Valley, 190–192

resist painting, 219resistance, to domination, 183, 184“Revolt of the Objects” (mural), 140, 143, 304Rey de Assiria, 93ritual practices: ceramics in, 283–284; in

Chicama Valley, 127, 130–131; as form of control, 152–155; at Huaca de la Luna,

Index 385

152–155; in Jequetepeque Valley, 83, 84, 88, 106–108; in Moche Valley, transformation of, 185–188, 198; in multiple-states theory, 13, 14. See also ceremonial structures

ritual warfare, 28–30, 31, 155, 321rivers: of Jequetepeque Valley, 89, 91–92,

104–105; and multiple-state model, 35; variation in flow of, 160, 161, 162

roads: in frontiers, 296, 297, 299; in Huacas de Moche urban nucleus, 163–165

Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, María, 35, 37, 71, 310

rulers, in political economic approach, 183–184rulers, Maya, 27–33; conflict among, 27–28;

control of labor by, 19; versus Moche rulers, 19, 31–33, 39–44, 315; power of, 44; ranking of, 27. See also kings

rulers, Moche, 314–316; burial of, 287–288, 314–315; in Chicama Valley, 130; control of labor by, 19; dynasties of, 37; lineage of, 36–37, 286–288, 314; versus Maya rulers, 19, 31–33, 39–44, 315; in Moche Valley political economy, 181, 185–199; power of, 9, 44; in Santa Valley, 254, 277–279; succession of, 37. See also kings

rural settlements, of Chicama Valley, 128–129Russell, Glenn S., 34, 37, 192

sacred architecture, at Huaca Cao Viejo, 121–122

sacred mountains, of Chicama Valley, 119, 128, 130

sacrifice. See human sacrificeSacrifice Ceremony, 47–69; designations

for participants in, 47–48, 49; discovery of, 47–49; elite in, 55–56, 69n1; gender of participants in, 48–49; geographical dis-tribution of, 60–68; in murals, 60, 320; as mythic versus performed ritual, 49–51; nude captives in, 56–58; in Pañamarca murals, 60–61, 68, 176; as part of state religion, 58; ritual vestments in, 68–69; series of activi-ties before and after, 51–58; simple versus complex versions of, 48; at Sipán and San José de Moro tombs, 49–51; standardiza-tion in, 68–69, 318; supernatural figures in, 49; Warrior Narrative in, 51–58, 59, 63, 318; weapon bundles in, 56–58, 59

Salinar, 10San Ildefonso, 99, 100, 102, 105San José de Moro: burials at, 42, 106, 107;

as ceremonial center, 106, 108; El Brujo

Complex and, 128; excavations at, 15, 49; integration of factions at, 105; relationship with other sites, 38, 128; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 49–51, 63; state religion at, 63; tomb of Figure C in, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 68

sanctions, in political economy, 183, 184, 199Sanders, William, 312, 313Santa Rosa de Quirihuac, 128, 190Santa Valley, 252–279; architecture in, 175, 254;

burials in, 74–75, 278; capitals and centers in, 260–266, 270, 272–274, 276; centraliza-tion in, 276; ceramics in, 226, 254, 258, 276; coexistence of cultures in, 71, 226, 260–261; cultural chronology for, 257–258, 259; DNA analysis in, 74–75; ecological events in, 270–272; excavations in, 255–257; fortifica-tions in, 302; hegemonic strategy in, 250; history of studies of, 9, 226, 255–257; ir-rigation in, 270, 271, 274, 275; map of, 256; migration from Moche Valley to, 270–271, 273, 274; military conquest of, 71, 75, 226, 255, 269; Moche sites in, 255, 256; Moche-Gallinazo relationship in, 226; nature of Moche occupation of, 226, 260–266, 273; population of, 273; as province in Moche state, 277–279; reasons for Moche presence in, 75, 254–255, 266–271, 277; rulers of, 254, 277–279; Sacrifice Ceremony in, 61;

settlement patterns in, 260, 274, 278; timing of Moche occupation of, 255, 257–260, 270–272. See also specific sites

Schaedel, Richard P., 34, 310Schortman, Edward M., 74scribes, Maya, 35–36sculpture: Maya, 17–22, 24, 27–28; Moche,

17–22Second Moche Period, at Huacas de Moche,

134, 140–148, 155–156, 157secular power: at Huacas de Moche, 140, 142,

147, 156, 158; versus theocratic power, 314secular warfare, 28–29, 321self-sacrifice, by Maya rulers, 44Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), 8serpents, eared: geographical distribution of,

61–62; as symbol of state religion, 59–60, 61serving wares, in burials, 189–190settlement patterns: dating of, 99, 312; in

Jequetepeque Valley, 89, 93, 95, 99–106, 311; before versus after Moche occupation, 175; in Moche Valley, 181; in political structure, 37–38; in Santa Valley, 260, 274, 278; warfare in, 311

386 Index

Shimada, Izumi, 34, 37, 70–82, 286, 308, 310, 313, 314, 319, 321, 322

Sicán, 75single-state model of Moche politics, xi, xii;

ceramic sequences in, 10–13; history of theory, 9–13, 85–87; opposition to, 11–13, 87–88; stability in, 86–87; support for, 9–11, 85–87

Sipán: decline of, 38; marked adobes at, 148; relationship with other sites, 38; rulers of, 288; Sacrifice Ceremony at, 49–51, 63–65; state religion at, 63–65

Sipán, tombs of: discovery of, vii, xi; excavations of, 7–8, 49; Figure A in, 49, 51, 52, 63; Figure B in, 49, 53, 63; versus Huaca Cao Viejo, 126–127; looting of, 7–8, 49; Lord of Sipán in, 8; rulers in, 288; Sacrifice Ceremony in, 49–51; and single-state theory, 12

sites: elements used for identifying culture at, 201–203; interrelationships of, 37–39; loca-tion of (See settlement patterns)

Smith, Michael E., 248social classes: formation of, 160; hierarchy

of, 170; interactions among, 170; urban, 134–135, 142–144, 163. See also elite

social formation, agriculture in, 159–160social interactions, in Jequetepeque Valley,

106social stratification, 170; in Jequetepeque

Valley, 88; in Moche Valley, 188sociopolitical organization, Greek, 77–79sociopolitical organization, Moche, 70–82;

art-based reconstruction of, 77–80; coex-istence and coevolution of, 70–74; future of research on, 80–82; Gallinazo-Moche relationship in, 70, 72–77; at Huacas de Moche, shift in, 140–148, 155–156; misperceptions about, 70–71, 77, 80, 81–82; Northern, 81, 206; scholarly debate on, vii, 182, 306; Southern, 206

Southern Moche region: art of, 34; border of, 148, 280, 288, 299; centralization in, 171–173, 206, 308; ceramics of, 11, 34, 205; cul-tural chronology for, 3, 257–258; frontiers of, 296–300, 305; genesis of political organization in, 13; maps of, 2, 50, 172, 204, 253; Moche expansion into, 223–227, 257; Moche hege-monic strategy in, 223, 225–227, 250; public architecture of, 174–177; scholarly debate on, 148–149; social organization of, 206; territori-ality in, 171–174; valleys of, 252. See also specific sites and valleys

Southern Moche state: climax of, 271; collapse of, 134, 140, 177, 270, 271; complexity of, 252, 277; consolidation of, 254; debate over existence of, 148–149; emergence of, 140, 142, 148–149, 182, 185, 252–254; Huaca de la Luna in, 149–152; natural disasters in, 177, 270; origins of expansionism of, 269; politi-cal economy of, 185, 194, 198, 199; provinces of, 271, 277–279; Santa Valley in, 277–279; size of, 252–254; support for existence of, 252; timing of decline of, 258

Spanish explorers, 3–4, 287Spider Decapitator: geographical distribu-

tion of, 61, 63, 66, 67; as symbol of state religion, 59–60

spiral-painted vase, 320Squier, E. George, 4staffs, at Huaca Santa Clara, 242–244state(s): definitions of, 159, 247–248, 309;

political economy of, 182; social conditions necessary for formation of, 159; territorial, 227, 247–248, 249, 277; theocratic, 160–162, 170. See also city-states; multiple-states model; Southern Moche state; two-state model

state religion, Moche, 58–69Stela H (Copán), 25–27Stela 10 (Yaxchilán), 315step-fret or step-wave motif, 22stirrup-spout bottles: in Culebras Valley,

298, 299, 300; in five-phase chronology of ceramics, 201–203; at Huaca Santa Clara, 245, 246; at Huancaco, 215, 216, 217, 246; iconography of, 18; in identification of Moche sites, 201; in Jequetepeque Valley, 96; Maya versus Moche, 18, 19; in Piura Valley, 289, 291, 293

storage facilities: at Gallinazo Group, 233–235; at Huaca Santa Clara, 232–235, 244

straight-spout bottles, 201, 202streets. See roadsstress, and warfare, 31Strong, William Duncan, 6, 38, 42, 224, 225,

286subterranean dwellings, 233–234sugar cane, 116, 117supernatural figures: at Huaca Cao Viejo,

123; Maya versus Moche, 20; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 49

Swenson, Edward R., 93, 99–101, 286symbols: Maya versus Moche, 17–27; of state

religion, 59–67

Index 387

Talambo canal, 97, 105tattoos, 240–241Taube, Karl, 316, 321taxation, 156, 182technology, history of studies of, 9teeth, DNA analysis of, 74–75, 76Tello, Ricardo, 189Temple I (Tikal), 42–44temples: in Jequetepeque Valley, 101;

U-shaped, 121. See also specific templestenant farming, 196Tenochtitlan, 248Teotihuacan, 38, 312, 313, 315–316Tepanec, 319terraces, at Huaca Santa Clara, 232territorial contractions, in Late Moche, 101territorial expansionism: agricultural lands

in, 268, 274; artifacts as proof of, 257; by city-states, 249; Huacas de Moche urban nucleus in, 170–171, 252; in Jequetepeque Valley, 89–95, 101–105; limits on, 280; in Middle Moche, 173, 223; misperceptions about, 70–71, 224, 271; and Moche IV ce-ramics, 203; after natural disasters, 268–271; Northern versus Southern, 171–174; reasons for, 268–271; in Santa Valley, 71, 75, 226, 255, 277; in single-state theory, 9; in Southern region, 223–227, 257; in Virú Valley, 71, 174, 206, 224–226, 250, 271; through warfare, 75–77, 223, 225–226

territorial sharing, 38territorial states: definition of, 227, 247–248;

Moche state as, 227, 249, 277Texcoco, 248textiles, at Huaca Santa Clara, 233, 235, 241,

243Theater State, 313, 315, 316, 317theocratic power: in Chicama Valley, 110, 120;

at Huacas de Moche, 134–136, 140, 142–144, 162; versus secular power, 314

theocratic states: agriculture and, 159–160; Maya as, 315–316; Moche as, 160–162, 170

thrones, 31Tikal (Guatemala): burials at, 27; graffiti at,

22; Temple I at, 42–44; warfare at, 30tinku, 29Tiwanaku, 247–248Tlacopan, 248Tolón canal, 89tombs: history of studies of, 7–8; Maya versus

Moche, 25–27; moving of objects in, 25. See also burials; specific tombs

Topic, John R., 28, 156Topic, Theresa Lange, 28Torero, Alfredo, 308trade: Maya, 35; Moche, 35, 106tribute collections, 29; in city-states, 248, 249–

250; in Moche Valley political economy, 196–197, 199; warfare for, 321

Trigger, Bruce G., 227, 247, 249Tufinio, Moisés, 18, 152, 153two-state model of Moche organization, 34,

148–149. See also Northern Moche region; Southern Moche region

Tzacualli phase, 312

Ubbelohde-Doering, Heinrich, 12Uceda Castillo, Santiago, xiii, 12, 18, 32,

40–41, 61, 132–158, 152, 284, 308, 309, 310Uhle, Max, 4–5, 86unity, political, 78–79University of California, Los Angeles, 69n2University of Montreal Project, 163Upper Piura Archaeological Project, 292Urban, Patricia A., 74urban class, at Huacas de Moche, 134–135,

142–144, 163urbanism: in city of Moche, 162–165; defini-

tions of, 309; existence of Moche form of, 284–286, 310; in Late Moche, 177–180; in Moche hegemonic strategy, 249. See also architecture; city planning

U-shaped temples, 121Uxmal, 22

valley states, evidence of, 34Vásquez Sánchez, Segundo, 63, 110–131Verano, John, 28–29, 34, 77, 153, 321vestments, standardized ritual, 68–69. See also

clothingVichansao canal, 194, 196Vicús ceramics. See ceramics, VicúsVicús-Tamarindo A and B, 11Vilela Puelles, Juan V., 18Virú ceramics. See ceramics, VirúVirú (Gallinazo) culture: burials of, 74–75,

76, 239; complexity of, 277; in conflict with Moche, 70; development of, 11, 14; DNA analysis of, 74–75, 76; in El Castillo, 258, 265, 268; genetic relationship with Moche, 74–75, 76; in Huaca de la Cruz, 225; in Huancaco, 174, 206; in Jequetepeque Valley, 89; misperceptions about, 77; in origins of Moche culture, 10, 13, 14, 304; as rulers of

388 Index

Virú (Gallinazo) culture (continued ) Virú Valley, 224; sociopolitical relationship

with Moche, 38, 70, 72–77, 174, 247; textiles of, 241; transformation of, in Early Moche, 302–304. See also Huaca Santa Clara

Virú Valley, 223–250; architecture in, 233–234; ceramic sequence in, 224; ceramic types in, 224; city-state system in, 250; coexistence of Gallinazo and Moche in, 71, 73–74; cultural chronology for, 224, 258; excavations in, 227–228; fortifications in, 299; Gallinazo rule of, 224; history of studies of, 6–7, 9, 224–228; map of, 224; Moche expansion into, 71, 174, 206, 224–226, 250, 271; Moche occupation of, 38, 174, 206, 221, 247; social reorganiza-tion in, 220. See also specific sites

Virú Valley Project, 6–7, 9, 73–74, 220Virú-Moche style ceramics, 281vultures, 23

war maces, 235, 236, 242war motifs, Maya, 22, 27–31, 321war motifs, Moche, 22, 320–321; on ceram-

ics, 29–30, 283–284; at Huaca Cao Viejo, 29–30, 122–123, 124; on murals, 29–30

warfare, Maya, 27–31warfare, Moche, 28–31, 320–321; in art (See

war motifs); captives in, 29–30; in human sacrifice, 30, 155; in Jequetepeque Valley, 101; motivations for, 28–31, 321; ritual versus secular, 28–30, 31, 321; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 55–58; in Santa Valley, 255, 269; in settlement patterns, 311; territorial expan-sions through, 75–77, 223, 225–226

Wari, xiii, 247–248Warner, John, 93Warrior Narrative: geographic distribution of,

63; in murals, 320; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 51–58, 59, 63, 318

Warrior Priest of Virú, tomb of, 6, 225, 246

warriors, Moche: on ceramics, 29–30, 283–284; dancing by, 61, 69n3; garments and gear of, 29; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 51–58; sacrifice of, 51–58, 153–155; status of, 55–56. See also warfare

water management, 160. See also irrigation systems

water motifs, 20water ownership, 160weapon bundles: geographical distribution

of, 61, 63, 65–66; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 56–58, 59; as symbol of state religion, 59–60

Willey, Gordon R., 6, 7, 86, 174, 207, 209, 211, 220, 221, 224–225, 228, 285, 300, 311, 316–317, 319

Wilson, David J., 61, 226, 254, 260, 273, 276, 300

women: Maya, 37; Moche, 37, 48–49wooden objects, at Huaca Santa Clara,

242–244workshops: Early Moche versus Late Moche,

281; in Huacas de Moche urban nucleus, 136, 145, 147, 156, 163, 191; in Huancaco, 207; need for excavation of, 80, 319; in Piura Valley, 292, 295; in Santa Valley, 276; transformation of, 191–193

writings, Maya, 17

Xalla, 312Xochicalco, 321

Yaxchilán (Mexico), 27–28, 315, 321Yunga, 183

Zaña Valley, 206, 311zoning, urban, 165

Religion, ethnic identity, and power in the Moche World. A View from the Frontiers

Documents

Transcript of Religion, ethnic identity, and power in the Moche World. A View from the Frontiers