Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Ancient beer and modern brewers: Ethnoarchaeological observations

of chicha production in two regions of the North Coast of Peru
Frances M. Hayashida *
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1086, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Archaeological studies of alcohol have tended to focus on consumption while production, particularly of
Received 11 June 2007 beer, has been more difficult to recognize and interpret. The ethnoarchaeological study of modern maize
Revision received 16 March 2008 beer or chicha production on Peru’s north coast provides information on (1) production steps and their
Available online 16 May 2008
material correlates, (2) labor and raw material inputs at different scales and possible labor bottlenecks,
and (3) variation in technology and organization that is linked to contexts of consumption and cultural
Keywords: differences through time across the Andes. Because of this variation, the ethnoarchaeological observa-
Ethnoarchaeology
tions reported here should not be directly projected onto the past, but rather should serve as points of
Alcohol
Beer
comparison with the archaeological record.
Brewing Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Feasting
Chicha
Andes
Peru

The archaeology of alcohol production
In a recent review, Dietler (2006) illustrates how societies past
and present use alcohol to define and reinforce relations between
neighbors and kin, lords and subjects, and deities and humans.
Most recent archaeological studies of alcohol have focused on
feasting, broadly defined as ‘‘a meal that is shared by two or more
individuals in a ceremonial or other non-routine context” (Adams,
2004, p. 60), such as ritual gatherings or work parties. Alcohol can
also be examined in ‘‘routine contexts”, e.g., as an item of com-
merce, where efforts to regulate or prohibit consumption reflect
social divisions and tensions, or as an everyday beverage that pro-
vides refreshment and nutrition while strengthening family and
community identity.
Archaeologists examining alcohol rely on multiple lines of evi-
dence (Dietler, 2006, p. 233). These include excavated materials
and features (drinking or storage vessels, feasting sites, breweries),
iconography and texts, residues, and experimental and ethno-
graphic evidence. Studies of exchange and consumption have fo-
cused on vessel size and decoration to identify and interpret
feasts (Bowser and Patton, 2004; DeBoer, 2001), the reconstruction
of trading networks from the distribution of storage jars (Koehler,
1995; Leonard, 1995), and the relation between politics and alco-
hol as reflected in vessel styles and their distribution (Anderson,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fmh@unm.edu
in press; Bowser, 2000; Bray, in press; Cook and Glowacki, 2003;
Dietler, 1990; Goldstein, 2003; Stronach, 1995; Wright, 1995).
Studies of production are less common, which is striking given
the long-standing interest by archaeologists in the creation of other
kinds of material culture. But unlike stone tools and pots, beer, wine,
and spirits are highly perishable and are meant to be ingested, leav-
ing little behind for study. Techniques for identifying alcohol resi-
dues have multiplied (McGovern, 2003; Samuel, 1996), but
analytical resolution is not yet fine enough to reveal details of tech-
nology, organization, and meaning, qualities that have been inferred
from finished crafts. Production sites could also be examined, but
those that have been documented to date are primarily large-scale
commodity or state-run operations (Dietler, 2006, p. 238). Iconogra-
phy and texts are also revealing, but may only represent a limited
range or idealized depiction of production arrangements.
Ethnographic and ethnohistorical accounts have also been a rich
source of information. They have been fruitfully applied to identi-
fying manufacturing locations, and to estimating the raw material
and labor inputs for feasts (Dietler, 2006, p. 238; Jennings, 2005;
Jennings et al., 2005). Archaeologists have relied on existing works
by ethnographers, travelers, and colonial observers who may
sometimes omit or neglect economic or cultural contexts, or the
material correlates of different technologies and production
arrangements. Explicitly ethnoarchaeological descriptions of brew-
ing, wine making or distillation are scarce and tend to be brief and
embedded in studies that emphasize serving and consumption
(Bowser, 2004; Dietler, 2001).

0278-4165/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.03.003
162 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
I argue that ethnoarchaeology can improve our ability to detect
production and to identify and interpret variation in terms of phys-
ical and cultural processes, just as similar dynamics have been re-
vealed through the ethnoarchaeology of craft production. To
pursue these goals, I initiated a project on contemporary maize
beer or chicha production on the north coast of Peru. The study
compares two contexts: larger scale production for sale in the
Department of Piura, and smaller scale production for household
consumption in the Department of Lambayeque (Fig. 1). As an ini-
tial step, I focus on the technology of brewing and its material cor-
relates, as well as the raw material and labor inputs required for
different batch sizes and brewing techniques. This work comple-
ments previous estimates of the resources required for production
at different scales (Jennings, 2005), but also considers how deci-
sions about inputs and organization can vary with different uses
and in different cultural contexts.
My goal is not to create a homogenous ‘‘chicha model” that can
be projected onto the past, but rather to provide analogues that can
serve as points of comparison with the archaeological record
(Brumfiel, 2006; Hayashida, in press; Stahl, 1993). Homogenous
models obscure both change through time and variation across
space. Analogues should instead be used in culturally and histori-
cally informed ways that consider possible sources of change and
continuity, allowing archaeologists to determine when practices
really persist, and to identify technologies and practices for which
there are no modern analogues. They should also allow us to con-
sider possible sources of variation in production. For example, la-
bor inputs may vary with brewing techniques. Similarly,
preparation of beer for different purposes may result in vastly dif-
ferent labor arrangements, regardless of the material requirements
of brewing. Thus, many more people than are actually necessary
may participate in beer preparation for purely social reasons. Used
in this way, ethnoarchaeological analogues help to build interpre-
tive frameworks that are both flexible and robust.
Peru
Chulucanas
Piura
Pa
cif Batán Grande
ic Mórrope
Oc
ea Chiclayo
n
N their families, for sale, or for fiestas (Camino, 1987; Nicholson,
0 50 km
Fig. 1. Location of study sites.
Chicha in the Andes and on Peru’s North Coast
From prehispanic times in the Andes, beer or chicha made pri-
marily from maize, but also from other grains or fruits, has been
a source of refreshment and nutrition as well as a key element in
social, political and ritual exchanges. Archaeological evidence for
chicha production has been inferred at a number of Andean sites,
often at administrative centers (Castillo, 2005; Dulanto, 2002;
Gero, 1990; Goldstein et al., in press; Goldstein, 1993; Jennings,
2005, in press; Moore, 1981, 1989; Morris, 1974, 1975; Moseley
et al., 2005; Prieto, 2004; Segura, 2001; Shimada, 1994; Valdéz,
2002). Identification has been based on the presence of brewing
tools and vessels (for milling, cooking, fermentation), by products
(e.g., the strained mash), and features (e.g., hearths, pits for germi-
nating grain).
Historical accounts relate that Inka chicha was brewed by the
‘‘chosen women” or aqlla who were given in service as part of
the tribute payments of conquered polities. They were relocated
to state centers where copious amounts of beer were served in
conspicuous displays of state hospitality to laborers and elites
(Morris, 1975). Chicha was an essential component of local and
community rituals as well, and was sometimes made by specialist
brewers using maize from dedicated fields, or from the first ears to
ripen during the harvest season (Hayashida, in press). Families also
produced chicha as a daily beverage, and vessels for brewing and
serving were common household possessions (Cobo, 1990[1653],
p. 194).
In modern times, chicha is still consumed in many areas as an
everyday or ceremonial beverage (Allen, 2002, in press; Camino,
1987; Orlove and Schmidt, 1995; Weismantel, in press), though
the contexts, meanings, and technologies of brewing have under-
gone challenges and changes through time. These include the
introduction, following the Spanish Conquest, of widespread com-
mercial production in small breweries (or chicherías), colonial ef-
forts to eradicate chicha because of its central role in religious
rites (Garofalo, 2001, 2003; Hayashida, in press; Mangan, 2005),
and the more recent adoption of chicha as a powerful symbol of
indigenous identity (Weismantel, in press).
On the late prehispanic Peruvian north coast, local lords distrib-
uted chicha to their followers, even serving it as they traveled
through the countryside during administrative tours (Ramírez,
1996: 20–21, Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, 1977, pp. 122–123,
144, 1989). When colonial authorities attempted to ban chicha,
the lords protested that without beer their subjects would not
work. Chicha was also brewed by specialist households who lived
in separate communities with their own political leaders (Rostwo-
rowski de Diez Canseco, 1989, p. 278–279). Evidence for brewing
has been found at centers of the Moche (2nd–8th century AD)
and Chimú (13th–15th century AD) polities, and may represent
the provisioning of state workers, or the hosting of periodic feasts
(Castillo, 2005; Chapdelaine, 2001; Moore, 1989; Prieto, 2004; Shi-
mada, 1994, 2001).
Photographic, ethnohistoric, and pictorial accounts indicate that
north coastal brewing techniques go back at least to the 18th cen-
tury (Anonymous, 1961[1720]; Brüning, 1990; Martínez Compañó-
n, 1978; Schaedel, 1988). Some practices are even older, given the
striking similarity of modern brewing vessels to forms commonly
found at late prehispanic north coastal sites. Despite these appar-
ent continuities, there have also been profound changes beginning
with the demographic decline, disruption, and reorganization of
coastal polities following the Spanish Conquest. Today, chicha on
the north coast is brewed primarily by women who make it for
1960; Velásquez, 1996). Many women have abandoned clay ves-
sels for aluminum pots and plastic bins. Other changes since the
 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
conquest include the use of sugar (as a sweetener or to increase
alcohol content), the great reduction in native varieties of maize,
and the widespread use of commercially milled grain.
Methods
In Piura, I interviewed women from ten different chicherías
(household breweries) in Chulucanas and surrounding towns and
small settlements (Vicus, Tamarindo, La Matanza, Huasimal, Char-
anal, kilometer 50). Each producer was on a fixed schedule with
known sales days (e.g., La Loba on Tuesday and Wednesdays, La
Cartola on Saturdays and Sundays), which, like other parts of the
Andes, is signaled with a white flag affixed to a long pole outside
of the home. In Chulucanas, chicha is available every day of the
week.
In Lambayeque, the eleven women I interviewed make chicha
for daily consumption and fiestas, either for their families or at
the request of neighbors. One sold chicha as a mid-morning
refreshment to workmen participating in an archaeological project.
The women resided near the towns of Mórrope and Batán Grande
in the communities of El Arbolsol, Poma III, Poma, and La Zaranda.
A total of six weeks was spent in the field. Information was
gathered through observation and semi-structured interviews.
The sample was opportunistic; friends and acquaintances intro-
duced me to brewers, and they in turn introduced me to others.
In a few cases, I went into a community, found out who was brew-
ing that day and introduced myself. Four of the Piura chicherías
were mapped using a compass and tape, and in one brewery, sys-
tematic samples for chemical, starch grain, and phytolith analyses
were collected from the earthen floor. The results of the residue
studies will be reported separately.
Production steps
Malting and milling
Piura
Chicha in the Chulucanas area is typically made out of a mix of
ground malted maize (pachucho) and regular maize flour (crudo)
that is purchased from vendors or directly from the mill where
the pachucho is produced. The most commonly used maize is a yel-
low hybrid, locally called ‘‘maiz perla” or ‘‘pato” though previously
local varieties were used. I interviewed four mill owners. They de-
scribed a four-step process of soaking the maize (for times ranging
from 8 to 30 h) in shallow cement or cement lined tanks, then
spreading the soaked kernels in a thick layer under shade and
lightly watering for 4–5 days until the root is about an inch long.
Next, they mound up the maize and cover the mounds completely
with plastic sheets or black costales (large woven plastic sacks that
are slit open and stitched together) that are weighted down for a
period ranging from 7 to 12 days, while the kernels ‘‘bake” (hor-
near. The mound is called an oven because of the heat generated.)
Finally, the seeds are spread out in a thin layer to dry in the sun for
1–2 days. One pachucho maker estimated that about 10% by
weight is lost during the malting process. Pachucho is made only
in the dry months since rain can spoil a batch. It is preferably
stored whole, not ground, to maintain its aroma and retard
spoilage.
Lambayeque
In the Lambayeque area, the women I interviewed make chicha
from malted grains only, which they call jora, and do not mix in
regular maize flour. They also rely on the yellow hybrid maize,
though many remember chicha made from the soft, red-kerneled
alazán variety. Alazán is still grown locally though it is rare, and
163
seeds can be purchased in the Moshoqueque market in Chiclayo
from vendors who buy the grain and malt it for sale to Lima
chicherías.
The ground jora is usually purchased from vendors. Three brew-
ers make their own jora using maize from family fields. They soak
the grain in a tub, spread it out in another container, and cover it
with plastic sheeting, then a cloth. Alternately, the soaked grains
are placed on a layer of banana leaves, then covered with more ba-
nana leaves and a layer of cloth. After 6–8 days, the germinated
grains are spread out to dry in the sun, and then taken to a mill
for grinding into flour. One informant described making jora with
her family when she was young. They would spread out the soaked
grain on a layer of fine, clean, sand, which they had brought from
nearby dunes. The kernels were covered with a layer of plastic, left
to sprout for eight days, and then dried in the sun. Another infor-
mant recalled using damp sand for sprouting, but said that it was
tedious to clean the kernels. Brewers who make their own jora
bring it to a mill to be made into flour.
Brewing
Piura
Brewing is a four day process with sales on the fifth and sixth
days (or beyond that if the chicha lasts). Thus a brewer who begins
on Tuesday serves on Saturday and Sunday.
On Day 1, early in the morning or beginning the night before,
the crudo and pachucho flours are mixed with water in the cooking
jars or ollas (Fig. 2) for the first boiling, which lasts from 1 to 10 h,
depending on the brewer and the kinds of pots used. The mix is
stirred frequently with a wooden paddle (or a split cane), and aer-
ated (venteado) using a big dipper (umaz) made from a large gourd
or a cut-out plastic jug attached to a stick (Fig. 3). This action helps
to cool the chicha and prevent it from boiling over. Thick foam
forms on the surface and sometimes boils over the sides. Algarrobo
(Prosopis sp.), which burns very hot, is the most commonly used
fuel in towns (where logs are purchased), while more rural produc-
ers use whatever wood is available.
The gaps between pots may be covered with pieces of sheet metal
or large broken vessel fragments to help control the fire and reduce
fuel consumption. To keep them stable, the pots may be propped up
with adobe supports or the bases may be partially buried. They are
arranged in groups of two rows in a permanent location (i.e., not
moved unless they break and need to be replaced), and range in size
from 2 to 4 latas (approximately 38–76 L, 1 lata = 5 gal) for a total
yield of 8–32 latas (approximately 151–606 L). Vessel exteriors are
often smeared with clay (and in one case cement), and may be rein-
forced with wire in order to make them more resistant to heat and
less likely to fracture from thermal shock; this smeared clay fires
onto the pot exterior during cooking (Fig. 4).
Despite these efforts, the cooking jars have a short use life, aver-
aging 2 weeks to one month of use (2–4 batches, with two boiling
episodes per batch). The brewers who still used clay pots got them
from the same potter in Chulucanas (there are only two who make
chicha vessels). They mentioned that the vessels used to last long-
er, so there may be something particular to the clays that this pot-
ter has been using more recently that makes the pots less resistant
to thermal shock. The broken pottery pieces (some with burned on
residues) are usually discarded. Larger pieces are sometimes used
to cover the gaps between cooking pots to reduce heat loss, while
rim fragments are used to support the bases of fermentation jars.
In one house, nesting ducks inhabited discarded pots that were
cracked but largely intact.
In several of the breweries, the hearth areas were slightly ele-
vated. This appeared to be the result of the accumulation of ash,
degraded adobes, and chunks of clay that flake off of the cooking
pots.
164 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174

Fig. 2. Pots for brewing chicha from the Piura study sites: (a) olla (for cooking), (b) tinajón (for cooling and working the chicha), (c) cántaro (for fermentation).

Fig. 3. A chicha hearth in Chulucanas, Peru. The brewer is using a large gourd Fig. 4. Chicha cooking pots that are wrapped in wire and covered with clay to help
dipper (umaz) to cool the chicha to prevent it from boiling over. The spaces between reduce thermal shock and breakage.
pots are covered with sheet metal to reduce heat loss.

After the first boiling, the chicha is transferred using the gourd
or plastic jug dippers from the ollas to nearby tinajones (very large
wide-mouthed jars, Fig. 3) for cooling and for grinding the mash
(referred to as working (trabajando) the chicha). All of the chich-
eras, even the ones who have switched to metal pots for cooking
still used ceramic tinajones purchased from Chulucanas or Simbilá,
another Piura pottery-making town. Unlike the cooking ollas, the
tinajones have very long lives, and it was difficult for the brewers
to recall when they had been purchased. One family noted that one
of their tinajones was purchased for a particular fiesta that they
sponsored in 1974; a second tinajón purchased at the same time
(referred to as the brother of the first tinajón) had just broken that
year (2005).
The tinajones are typically set deeply into the ground. To
‘‘work” the chicha, a narrow log called a vieja, made from zapote
(Capparis angulata), is laid across the mouth of the tinajón
(Fig. 5). Handfuls of sieved mash are rubbed back and forth across
 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
Fig. 5. ‘‘Working” the chicha by rubbing the cooked meal vigorously over a zapote
(Capparis angulata) log that is balanced across the rim of a large tinajón. A repaired
gourd dipper floats in the foreground.
the vieja, probably to extract all the starch and sugars. As the chi-
cha is worked, small handfuls of mash may also be chewed, and
then returned to the pot adding additional enzymes for saccharifi-
cation (the conversion of starch to sugar). Once it is worked, the
chicha is passed through a sieve made of window screen attached
to a wooden frame, then left to cool completely, and periodically
aerated with an umaz while it cools. The sieved remains, or afrecho,
are usually fed to household animals such as chickens, turkeys,
ducks, pigs, or sold as feed.
The rims of the tinajones can be quite battered. This likely re-
sults from the resting of the vieja across the rim as the lees are vig-
orously rubbed back and forth. It may also be from banging the
framed sieve onto the edge of the pot.
On Day 2, very early in the morning, the chicha is boiled again;
with times ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 h. Sugar may be added at this
time. The fire is quickly extinguished once the cooking is done
and the charcoal is recovered and used for cooking or ironing, or
is sold.
As it is transferred to the tinajones, the chicha is sieved through
a cotton cloth held by two people; the ends of the cloth are rapidly
moved up and down to pass the liquid through, and the residue is
pressed or twisted in the cloth and squeezed to extract all the li-
quid (Fig. 6). This second sieving through cloth is called to taquear
the chicha, and the residue, or taca is fed to animals or sold as feed.
The chicha is left in the tinajones and is aerated with an umaz to
cool the chicha and to add oxygen to facilitate fermentation. Once
completely cool, it is transferred to large narrow necked jars or
cántaros (Figs. 3 and 7). Many brewers also use large plastic bins
with lids for fermentation. The jars or bins are capped, and the chi-
cha is left to ferment for two days (Days 3 and 4). Cántaros are sta-
bilized with small supports at their bases, like stones, adobe brick
fragments, or the rim sherds from broken cooking pots. In one
house, the jars were lined up in a shallow trench along a wall, again
with base supports.
When the chicha is ready on Day 5, long-handled dippers, now
made with the cut out bottoms of plastic bottles or a can attached
to a stick, are used to transfer the brew into clay or metal pitchers.
Large gourd bowls were commonly used for serving in the past and
are occasionally still used at rural fiestas.
165
Fig. 6. Taqueando the chicha (sieving it through cotton cloth) over a tinajón.
Fig. 7. Fermentation jars that have been filled and lightly capped. Note rim sherd
supports at the base of the jars.
The chicha is drunk from small gourd bowls or cups called potos
or cojuditos. Chicha typically is sold over one to two days, and is
still good for another day or two before turning to vinegar.
Lambayeque
In Lambayeque, chicha preparation takes two to three days,
with one to two days of cooking, cooling, milling the mash, and
sieving. The chicha is consumed immediately, or is left to ferment
for a day or more before drinking. Unlike the Piura brewers, the
women observed in Lambayeque use pure malted grain for their
chicha, do not chew the mash, and the chicha is boiled once, not
twice. Cooking begins on the morning of Day 1 and lasts for 7–15
hours. The mix is stirred with a stick, and hot water is added as
the chicha cooks down.
For daily family consumption, a single pot with a capacity of 3–7
latas (57–132 L) is typically used, and chicha is brewed every week
or every two weeks. Chicha hearths are located outdoors, while food
for daily meals is cooked indoors. Chicha cooking pots in Lambaye-
que are tall with a slightly constricted neck (Figs. 8 and 9). They
are partially buried (about the bottom one quarter to one third) for
stability and perhaps to reduce sticking and burning at the bottom.
Pots are removed for cleaning and storage (rather than permanently
left in place, as was the case with Piura). Fuel is placed on one side of
the pot. The hearth may be next to a wall (to cut down on the wind) or
pieces of sheet metal may be used to block the wind and reduce heat
loss. Algarrobo is the preferred fuel wood, and is collected locally
rather than purchased. Two informants noted that zapote wood is
a poor fuel choice, as it imparts a smoky taste to the beer. Some of
the brewers smear clay on the exterior of their pots, preferably from
166 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174

Fig. 8. Pots for brewing chicha from the Lambayeque study sites: (a) olla (for cooking), (b) lebrillo or callana (for cooling) (c) tinajón (for cooling), (d) cántaro or mulo (for
fermentation).

the nest of the chilalo (Pacific hornero, Furnarius cinnamomeus),

Fig. 9. Chicha hearth in the Lambayeque region. Smaller pots hold water that is
added to the chicha as it boils down.
which one informant described as ‘‘already mixed” with bits of veg-
etation (as temper) in the clay. More pots are borrowed when brew-
ing for a fiesta. Cooking pots are usually purchased from potters from
the town of Mórrope though one woman patronized a potter who
had recently migrated from Cajamarca to the coast. Brewers in Lam-
bayeque reported that their cooking pots last a year or two, with
weekly or biweekly use.
After cooking, the chicha is left to cool in the same pot, or trans-
ferred to another clay cooking pot, a large metal pot, or a shallow
wide-mouthed callana (also called a lebrillo, Fig. 8). Only two of
the brewers had the large tinajones (Fig. 8) that are common in
Piura. To transfer the chicha, plastic pitchers or small gourd dip-
pers (chiculas) made from a split necked gourd are used. The large
gourd dippers (umaces) used in Piura were not seen in Lambaye-
que, perhaps because of smaller batch sizes or the relative scarcity
and expense of the big gourds. The chicha may be cooled for a few
hours (and occasionally aerated) or left overnight.
 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
Once cool, the chicha is sieved through cloth. Sieving may be done
with two people, each grasping the ends and rapidly moving the cor-
ners up and down, but often, the brewer simply ties the other end of
the cloth to a chair (the seat of the chair is weighted down), and
sieves alone (Fig. 10). The sieved mash (afrecho) is milled, though
here, techniques varied more than they did in Piura. In some cases,
the afrecho is rubbed briskly across a zapote log, but with the log
placed vertically in a small basin or pot rather than horizontally
across the rim. Some brewers grind the afrecho in wooden batanes
(grinding troughs); others use a food mill or simply rub the lees vig-
orously between their hands. At this point, the afrecho is mixed back
into the chicha, or less commonly, mixed with more boiling water to
extract the mildly flavored chicha de afrecho.
The chicha with the milled afrecho is stirred and sieved through
cloth, with the sieved mash reserved as animal feed. It is then
transferred to narrow-necked jars (called cántaros or mulos,
Fig. 8). While the same forms are used for water storage, water is
never stored in jars that will be used for beer; doing so is said to
ruin the chicha, probably by rinsing out or killing the yeast neces-
sary for fermentation.
Sugar may be added as each cántaro is filled or just before serv-
ing. The chicha is consumed immediately or is left for an additional
day before drinking. Like Piura, the chicha is sipped from gourd
bowls. Average daily consumption for adults is reported to be 2–
3 L/person and more (3–4 L) if one is working in the fields.
The chicha in Lambayeque lasts two weeks or longer if the
weather is cool. In Piura, the chicha probably turns to vinegar more
quickly because of the warmer climate and the higher alcohol con-
tent. In Piura, a higher ratio of meal to water is used and sugar is
added during cooking (rather than just before drinking). The chicha
also has a longer fermentation time (two versus one or no days) be-
fore it is consumed. The result is a more alcoholic chicha that pro-
vides more food (alcohol) for acid producing bacteria.
The material correlates of brewing
Activity areas and scale
Table 1 summarizes the tools and byproducts of chicha produc-
tion as observed in Piura and Lambayeque. Observations were also
Fig. 10. Fine sieving (taqueando) the chicha in the Lambayeque region.
167
made about the layout and permanence of brewing activity areas
and facilities. In Piura, where the operations are larger scale and
brewing is done on a weekly basis, permanent areas are dedicated
to the different steps (Figs. 11 and 12). Thus there is a fixed hearth,
cooling areas, and areas for fermentation. In Lambayeque, while
the hearth may always be established in the same place, the cook-
ing pots and lebrillos are moved around. Tinajas (if used) remain in
place. The cántaros may also be moved, or the chicha may be
brought to the cántaro, which sits in the kitchen. Today, a plastic
bucket is used to transfer the chicha from cooling pot to fermenta-
tion jar.
At the Piura breweries, the brewing areas are roofed and adjoin
the kitchen where food is prepared. The roof may be simple, such
as palm fronds placed over a frame. In Lambayeque, brewing takes
place outdoors at unroofed patios or open spaces adjacent to the
house. Note, however, that the difference may have more to do with
the kinds of settlements rather than the scale of production; in Piura,
most of the brewers in the study live in towns (denser settlements),
whereas in Lambayeque, they live in small rural settlements.
There is an important exception to the observation that larger
scale production is correlated with more permanent facilities. This
is the case of periodic large scale production for fiestas. An example
was documented in Piura, where the informants had hosted a gath-
ering for a funeral mass a month before my visit. The household
produces chicha regularly for sale, but for the funeral feast, they
borrowed additional metal cooking pots, clay tinajones (trans-
ported to the house by horse- (or mule or burro) drawn carts),
and clay jars and plastic bins for fermentation. Brewing hearths
were set up along the edge of the patio; each consisted of two lines
of bricks that supported a pair of cooking pots above the fire. In the
center of the patio, several lines of tinajones were set into the
ground for cooling and working the chicha. After the fiesta, the bor-
rowed vessels were all returned. A month later, all that was left
were the bases for five hearths, and holes in the patio floor where
the tinajones had been placed into the ground.
The same household had hosted an even larger gathering a year
and a half before my visit when one of the sons sponsored a major
religious feast. Sponsorship rotates among members of a herman-
dad (brotherhood) whose members commemorate saint’s days or
other holy days (in this case, the arrival of the Magi). For this
three-day feast, 28 goats were killed and 800–1000 lbs of flour
(from a mix of malted and unmalted grains) were cooked into chi-
cha for a total approximate yield of 256–320 latas (4838–6048 L).
Two hundred and fifty guests received formal invitations, but the
family estimated that two to three times that number actually par-
ticipated. Forty people assisted with the preparation of food and
beer. Thirty-four metal cooking ollas were used; most of these
had been borrowed from neighbors, along with additional tina-
jones and fermentation vessels, which were all returned after the
fiesta. Some of the hearths and tinajón depressions from this ear-
lier, larger fiesta are no longer visible; this is not surprising since
the area receives frequent foot traffic from people and animals.
In the archaeological record, these large-scale but temporary brew-
ing episodes would be difficult to detect, but may appear as multi-
ple small shallow hearths and depressions.
Inputs and scale
Raw materials and labor
Drinking feasts require sufficient raw materials (grain, malt,
fuel) and vessels to produce large quantities of alcohol. For beer,
which tends to spoil quickly, patrons must also recruit the labor
necessary to brew large batches in a short amount of time (Dietler,
2006, p. 238; Jennings, 2005, p. 245–246; Jennings et al., 2005).
168 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174

Table 1
Tools and by products of chicha brewing
Brewing step Object Material Wear Disposition Additional notes
Cooking Cooking pots Clay or metal (aluminum) Sooty, discolored, smeared Partially buried, or High breakage rate
with fired clay with supports
Cooking Objects for Large sherds or pieces of sheet metal Sherds sooty and discolored
controlling fire from multiple firings
Cooking Stirrers Long wooden paddles (carved), sticks, Worn at the ends from
or split lengths of cane abrading the bottom of the
pots
Cooling Cooling jars Clay (tinajones) or metal Rim may be battered (from Partially buried In several of the
movement of vieja, sieve) Lambayeque cases, the
chicha was simply left in
the cooking olla to cool
Fermentation Fermentation jars Clay (cántaros, mulos), Covered with Not observed Placed in small Wooden barrels are used by
cloth, a split gourd, or a plastic lid trough or (most itinerant vendors (Piura)
during fermentation. Jars may be commonly) used
replaced with plastic bins or wooden with supports
barrels
Cooking, fermentation Pot supports Small adobes or adobe fragments, Not observed
bricks or brick fragments, stones,
sherds (especially rim sherds) to
support pots at hearth, or jars during
fermentation
Milling flour or cooked Trough for Trough made of wood such as Smooth, concave depression Rocker stones of the right
grain fragments grinding and algarrobo, zapote, or guabo. Rocker in trough size and shape may be hard
rocker stone stone especially selected for to find locally and may be
hardness, smooth surface, and proper brought in from distant
shape (ovoid, symmetrical, not too areas
flat)
Milling the cooked ‘‘vieja” A long, straight, zapote log Not observed Multiple viejas at larger
grain fragments breweries
Sieving Coarse sieves Window screen nailed to a wooden Not observed
frame
Sieving Fine sieves Cotton cloth (flour sacks) Not observed
Cooking, cooling, and Large dippers Large gourds or plastic gallon jugs Gourds may split and are Rare in Lambayeque
transferring chicha affixed to a long stick repaired (holes drilled on
either side of split and sides
laced together)
Cooling chicha and Small dippers Small necked gourds, small plastic Not observed Used to help cool the chicha
scooping cooked sieves with handles, or small plastic once it is transferred. Also
grain pitchers used to scoop up cooked
grain for chewing (Piura)
Serving Ladles Bottoms of small (quart size) plastic Not observed
bottles affixed to sticks

Existing descriptions of chicha production can be used to piece to-
gether a partial picture of raw material requirements (e.g., kg of
maize per unit yield), and these have been carefully summarized
and analyzed by Jennings (Jennings, 2005). Here, I expand the dis-
cussion by using the Piura and Lambayeque observations to ad-
dress the following questions:
(1) What are the labor and raw material inputs for brewing and
how do they vary between the two study sites?
(2) How do inputs vary with increasing yields? Are there poten-
tial economies of scale?
Table 2 summarizes the labor and maize inputs for Piura and
Lambayeque. For the analysis of labor input during the boiling or
simmering of the chicha, only the brewers who use clay pots were
included in the analysis. Many of the differences between Piura
and Lambayeque reflect the contrast in scale of production, e.g.,
the mean amount of meal used per batch is much greater for Piura
brewers with their larger batch sizes. Others reflect different reci-
pes; in Piura, there is a greater ratio of meal to finished chicha than
there is in Lambayeque (for Piura, 1.68 kg/lata (SD 0.26); for Lam-
bayeque 0.8 kg/lata (SD 0.19)). This difference may reflect regional
taste preferences and whether the chicha is intended for sale or for
home consumption, or for inebriation versus refreshment.
The higher ratio of meal per unit output for Piura results in a
significant difference in the amount of labor used for grinding
and sieving the cooked grain per unit output (Piura, mean 0.75 h/
lata, SD 0.20; Lambayeque, mean 0.42 h/lata, SD 0.18, Mann–Whit-
ney U test, p < 0.01). However, the amount of labor for grinding and
sieving the cooked grain per unit of meal does not differ signifi-
cantly between the two regions (Mann–Whitney U test, p > .05),
even though their techniques vary. Thus, when considering labor
inputs, the ratio of meal and how it might vary (and not just the
overall volume produced) must be considered. This topic is dis-
cussed more fully below.
The mean cooking times for brewers using clay pots are signif-
icantly longer in Lambayeque (mean 10.25 h) than Piura (mean
8.5 h, Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.01). Note that the simmering
pots do not require constant attention. Brewers may rest while
the chicha boils or take care of other household tasks, returning
periodically to the hearth to stir the pots.
Milling time for flour
In all cases, flour was purchased rather than milled by the brew-
ers. Therefore, the time needed to convert grain to flour was de-
rived experimentally (Fig. 13). A few of the Lambayeque
households still have large, wooden batanes or grinding troughs
with their corresponding ovoid rocker stones, or chungas. The ba-
tanes were made from split and hollowed algarrobo (Prosopis pall-
ida), zapote (C. angulata), or guabo (Inga feuilleei) logs. They are
now used just for grinding the cooked grain, but in the past they
 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174 169

Fig. 11. A chichería in Chulucanas with permanent areas for cooking, cooling, and
fermentation (outside of the photo).

were sometimes used to make the jora flour. To assess milling

times using a batán, I asked three individuals to grind 1.5 kg of hy-
brid yellow maize jora, then measured the time needed to yield a
flour where 2/3 by weight (1 kg) would pass through a 3 mm
screen. This is the approximate texture of the coarse machine-
milled flour commonly used in Lambayeque. The millers were
two women using the same batán and chunga set (one that has
been in their household for many years), and one man using a batá-
n and chunga from the ethnographic collections of the Sicán Mu-
seum. The average time for all three runs was 47.7 min (SD 5.0)
for a kilo and a half, or 31.8 min/kg (SD 3.4).
It should be noted that maize varieties vary in hardness; thus
average milling times would also vary. For example, the native ala-
zán maize is softer, and might be milled more quickly.

Fuel

Brewers in the larger Piura towns purchase fuel while the more
remote Piura brewers and all those interviewed in Lambayeque
gather their own wood. The latter had difficulty calculating the vol-
ume of wood consumption, and log size varied greatly for the
batches I observed. Those who purchase wood use two size classes,
gruesa (thick) and chamisa (brush), and readily identified their
weekly fuel consumption. Algarrobo is the preferred fuel in all
cases. Zapote (C. angulata) another common species is undesirable;
brewers in Lambayeque report that the chicha ‘‘se ahuma” (ac-
quires a smoky taste) if cooked with zapote. Note, however, that
zapote has been reported as a desired or preferred wood in other
Piura studies (Camino, 1982, p. 27, 1987, p. 34–35).
To convert log quantities to wood weight and volume, I mea-
sured and weighed a sample of 25 gruesa and 25 chamisa algarrob-
o logs at one of the Piura chicherías; the results are seen in Table 3. Fig. 12. Map of the chichería that appears in the Fig. 11 photograph.
On the basis of these measurements and reported fuel use, the
mean fuel consumption in Piura per lata is 9.22 kg (SD 1.65), or
0.010–0.013 m3/lata based on reported wood densities of P. pallida to control the heat of chicha hearths was observed by Camino in
and julifora (Pasiecznik, 2001, p. 74). Catacaos (Camino, 1987), and is illustrated in an 18th Century
In Lambayeque, the average fuel consumption per lata is prob- watercolor of north coastal life commissioned by Martínez Com-
ably higher since average cooking times are longer. Also, brewers pañon (1978, Plate E59).
here usually use a single pot, piling the wood on one side, while Fuel consumption can vary greatly depending on how hot the
they stand on the opposite side to stir. Much of the heat is thus lost, brewer wants the fire, and how carefully she controls heat loss.
though loss may be reduced by cooking next to a wall, or by plac- For example, in Piura, the producer with the highest fuel use
ing sheet metal on the open side. In contrast, in Piura, the wood is burned 100 logs of gruesa and 100 of chamisa or 400 kg of algar-
fed between the rows of pots. The gap between rows is covered robo per week for a 32 lata (606 L) batch that was cooked for a total
with sheet metal or large, broken pieces of pottery to help retain of 7 h. Another brewer, who made the same size batch, yet with a
and reflect heat. Clay may be used to seal any additional gaps on much longer total cooking time (13 h), used only 100 thick logs and
the tops and sides of pots. The use of large sherds and sheet metal no thin logs (a total of approximately 300 kg/batch, or 25% less
170 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174

Table 2
Labor and Maize Inputs
Maize Yield Meal per Working and Working and sieving Working and sieving Cooking Cooking time
meal (kg) (latas) lata (kg) sieving time (h) time per lata (h) time per kilo (h) time (h)a per lata (h) a
Lambayeque (N = 11) Min 2.00 2.00 0.46 0.58 0.20 0.25 7.00 1.29
Max 6.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 0.75 1.00 15.00 3.50
Mean 3.18 4.18 0.80 1.69 0.42 0.55 10.25 2.71
(SD) (1.04) (1.47) (0.19) (0.74) (0.18) (0.27) (2.87) (0.77)
Piura (N = 10) Minimum 17.05 12.00 1.42 8.00 0.50 0.26 7.00 0.22
Maximum 51.14 32.00 2.13 30.00 1.05 0.66 13.00 0.58
Mean 30.68 18.80 1.68 13.90 0.75 0.45 8.50 0.38
(SD) (11.11) (8.01) (0.26) (6.92) (0.20) (0.12) (3.00) (0.16)
Mann–Whitney U 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.00** 11.50** 46.00 0.00** 0.00**
a
Only brewers using clay pots (Lambayeque n = 8, Piura n = 4).
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

Time working, sieving and cooking per lata (hours)

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00
R Sq Linear = 0.733

1.50

2.00 4.00 6.00

Yield (latas)

Fig. 14. Cooking time as related to production scale in Lambayeque.

correlation between cooking labor and batch size in Lambayeque

Fig. 13. Malted maize milling experiment using a wooden grinding trough.
fuel). In the latter case, spaces between pots both on top and on the
sides of vessels were carefully sealed with clay and sheet metal,
resulting in a slower, more controlled burn. Also note that the
wood is not totally consumed during cooking. Once the chicha
has simmered for the desired amount of time, the fire is doused.
The recovered charcoal is then used to cook food (though not re-
used in the chicha hearths), to heat clothing irons, or is gathered
into sacks and sold.
Economies of scale
To understand the relationship between labor and yield, labor
inputs for different production steps per unit of yield can be plot-
ted against batch size. The results indicate a significant negative
(r2 = 0.717, p = .008, Beta = 0.847, Fig. 14); the larger the batch,
the less person hours per unit output. A similar relationship is also
suggested for Piura (r2 = 0.586, Beta = 0.765), but the result is not
significant (p = 0.235). When Piura, with its much larger batches is
compared to Lambayeque, the scale efficiency is even more appar-
ent, with an average of 0.38 person hours/lata cooking time in
Piura versus 2.71 person hours/lata in Lambayeque (Table 2). This
difference is affected by the shorter cooking times in Piura (a mean
of 8.5 h vs 10.25 h), but even if Piura cooking times were equal to
those of Lambayeque, the labor per unit yield would still be much
lower (0.48 vs 2.71 person hours/lata). The explanation for this
pattern is that regardless of batch size, only one person tends the
simmering chicha. Even at the largest Piura chicherías (with
batches of 32 latas (approximately 600 L)), the dueña (owner)
alone watches and stirs the pots, and enlists or hires help for the
other steps.
Note that this scale efficiency disappears if more people help to
stir the simmering chicha. While it is certainly physically possible

Table 3
Fuel use
Mean length (cm) Mean circumference at midpoint (cm) Mean diameter (cm) Mean weight (kg)
Gruesa (thick log) 79.36 (SD 13.19) 28.04 (SD 4.07) 10.6 (SD 2.00) 3.13a
Chamisa (thin log) 74.16 (SD 8.82) 14.52 (SD 2.31) 5.26 (SD 1.05) 0.86a
a
The spring scale used was not sensitive enough to weigh individual logs; thus several were weighed at a time. For this reason, the standard deviation is not calculated.
 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
for one person to tend many pots, there may be social reasons to
involve more people in this step. An example is discussed below.
Summary of input and scale observations and sources of variation
Based on the foregoing analyses of brewing in Lambayeque and
Piura, several general observations can be made.
A woman working alone or with the assistance of just one other
person can make a fairly large batch of chicha (7 latas or approxi-
mately 132 L) for weekly family consumption. Larger batches re-
quire additional help, particularly to work and sieve the beer.
Because chicha, like other beers, can spoil quickly, there is a brief
window of time in which the working and sieving need to be
accomplished. Boiling the chicha, even large batches, is a task that
can be carried out alone.
While there is a potential economy of scale for the boiling steps,
there are no apparent efficiencies with larger batches in the work-
ing and sieving steps. Working, sieving, and milling are thus labor
bottlenecks. Milling differs in that milled flour can be stored; thus a
few people could make a lot of meal over a longer period of time
(though long storage would alter flavor and aroma, and may make
the meal vulnerable to spoilage or pests). Working and sieving, in
contrast, must be accomplished within a short window of time;
thus to make a large batch, one would need to recruit many people
to aid in these steps.
With milling, working, and sieving as the labor bottlenecks, the
ratio of meal per unit output needs to be considered in addition to
the total yield. A concentrated chicha is potentially more labor
intensive than a dilute chicha. Note that the ratios of meal per unit
output are lower for Piura and especially Lambayeque than they
are for other areas where the meal ratio can be calculated (Table 4).
Variation in chicha brewing techniques, and the potential con-
sequences for labor and material inputs should also be acknowl-
edged. First, chicha need not be made with milled grains, which
would reduce labor inputs. In Simbilá in Piura, chicha was previ-
ously made with half whole grains and half milled grains (Camino,
1982, p. 29). Large, perforated pottery dippers (Gero, 1990, p. 53)
may have been used for sieving whole boiled grains, which were
then milled, and returned to the pot. Likewise, finer or coarser flour
may be preferred, altering milling times.
Second, chicha need not be worked or sieved at all, or may be
only coarsely sieved, reducing or eliminating these steps as labor
bottlenecks. In Lambayeque and Piura, the mash is worked to sep-
arate as much of the starch and sugar from the kernel pericarps as
possible. I could not find any other descriptions of brewing that in-
Table 4
Yield per kilograms of meal
Ratio (L/kg meal) Source
1.46 Nicholson, 1960, p.296a
2.4 Soriano, 1938, p. 242–243
3.13 Camino, 1987, p. 45–49
4.7 or 6.26b Camino, 1982, p. 29
5.26 Valdizán and Maldonado
(1922, p. 92)
6.44 Perlov (in press)
8.88–13.33 (N = 10)
Mean = 11.51 (SD = 1.99)
13.043 Zalles Cueto (1990)
18.93–41.15 (N = 11) Mean = 23.66
a
Nicholson reports the use of 40 lbs of ground pachucho (malted maize) for four cooking pots yielding a total of 7 gal or 26.5 L. This would mean that each pot has a
capacity of 1.75 gal or 6.62 L. This tiny volume is unlikely given the vessels illustrated and described in Camino’s (1982, 1987) detailed studies of Catacaos brewing and
pottery making in Simbilá (the town that provides Catacaos with their chicha vessels). Seven gallons (26.5 L) would also be inadequate to meet the daily consumption needs
of two adults (the minimum household) for a week, if each adult consumes 2.5 L/day (total = 35 L/week). It is more likely that the yield is 7 gal/pot, or a total of 106 L, which
would result in a ratio of 5.84 L/kg.
b
Two different ratios are reported.
171
clude the step of grinding the cooked mash, and the practice may
be recent on the north coast. In his detailed observations of north
coastal brewing from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Brüning
does not mention this step and neither viejas nor other milling de-
vices are noted in his Muchik glossary of brewing terms (Schaedel,
1988, p. 117–125). In other regions, the cooked grain (or a fraction
of it) is recovered and eaten as a sweet, or is used as feed (Cutler
and Cardenas, 1947; Nicholson, 1960, p. 197; Soriano, 1938, p.
239; Valdizán and Maldonado, 1922).
Sieving practices may also vary. The north coastal practice of
sieving through cloth (or double sieving, first through window
screen then through cloth), may be laborious but results in a chicha
that is relatively free of sediment. But sieving techniques, taste
preferences, and ideas about sediment vary across space and time.
Randall (1993) describes the modern highland practice of passing
the chicha through a basket lined with ichu (bunch grass; see also
Franquemont et al. (1990, p. 76)); the basket is perched on top of a
support and the liquid drips into a pot that is placed below. The
operation can be done by one person. The filtered chicha is still full
of sediment, which settles into the lower portion of the pot. This
sediment, or qoncho, represents a female, fertilizing substance,
and a portion is saved as a ‘‘starter” for the next batch of chicha.
Chicha sediment (resulting from coarse sieving) and its qualities
are also recounted in a description of the Inka qhapaq hucha cere-
mony, involving the selection and sacrifice of children, which pre-
ceded the Inti Raimi, or festival of the sun held at the June solstice.
After toasting the sun with paired golden cups, the Inka king
rubbed his body with the lees, to participate in [the sun’s] deity
(Hernández Príncipe, 2003[1621], p. 743). In another colonial era
account, Arriaga, describes the chicha used for rituals as ‘‘thick like
mazamorra [pudding]”, indicating an unsieved or coarsely sieved
brew (Arriaga, 1968[1621], p. 209–210).
Third, many modern brewers may add sugar to increase sweet-
ness and alcohol levels. Pre-Columbian brewers may have added
sweeteners as well (such as algarrobo pods, or fruit (Prieto, 2005,
p. 152)), but it is possible that a higher ratio of maize was used
in the past to enhance flavor and alcohol content.
Fourth, cooking times, hearths, fuels, and fuel access vary, and
thus the amounts of wood consumed in contemporary brewing
in Piura and Lambayeque may not be typical. Even on the north
coast, a detailed study of fuel use in prehispanic pottery and met-
allurgical workshops of the Sicán culture revealed the selective use
of deadwood and the harvesting of charcoal remaining from one
craft for use in another (Goldstein, 2007; Goldstein and Shimada,
2007). It is possible that Sicán brewing was similarly concerned
Location Ingredients
Catacaos, Piura Pure malted grain. Chewing not reported. Sugar may be added
Salta, Argentina A mix of chewed (9/10 or 7/8) and salivated (1/10 or 1/8) maize flour.
May add raisins for color when boiling
Catacaos, Piura Pure malted maize? Chewing is reported. Sugar may be added
Simbila, Piura Pure malted grain? Chewing not reported. Sugar may be added
Arequipa, Peru Pure malted grain. Sugar may be added
Cochabamba, Bolivia ?
Upper Piura, Peru Mix of malted and unmalted grain. May chew, may add sugar
Chuquisaca, Ecuador Chewed grain
Lambayeque, Peru Pure malted grain. Not chewed. Sugar may be added
172 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
with fuel conservation. The fuel consumption rates observed by
this study should not be applied without first considering the
potentially great variation in cooking times and temperatures,
hearth configurations (which may be more or less efficient), and
rules and patterns of access to woody resources. A brewer partici-
pating in a market economy who purchases wood may use it very
differently than one who lives in a society where woody resources
are communally managed or under central control, or where wood
scarcity affects not only brewing but also the ability to prepare
meals and manufacture goods.
Fifth, there are multiple accounts of aged chicha that could be
stored for long periods of time; in theory, this makes stockpiling
possible. In Lambayeque, I was told repeatedly of an aged chicha.
One informant described the production process as follows: the
chicha is allowed to ferment until it is no longer bubbling. It is
put into small (one lata, lata and a half) cántaros, which are sealed
with clay or plaster, then buried. On special occasions, the chicha is
disinterred and consumed. Excavating the buried cántaros is itself
a special ceremony that may involve padrinos (godparents or spon-
sors). Different ‘‘vintages” are described (chicha of one month, chi-
cha of two months, chicha of one year, or two years), and the
chicha is said to be strong and dry, and similar to wine or port in
flavor.
Aged chichas are reported for other areas. Tschudi (1918, p.42)
describes a buried, aged chicha in the Titicaca area that was strong
and tasted like wine. Like the Lambayeque chicha, it was consumed
on special occasions, like a child’s birthday. Bertonio’s
(1984[1612]) seventeenth-century Aymara dictionary includes
terms for chicha that is ‘‘valuable, or stored for a long time” (Chicha
preciada, o guardada por mucho tiempo: Llutapu, yanu yakusa). The
drink used to toast the sun by the Inka king during the qhapaq hu-
cha ceremony is described as chicha de muchos años (chicha of
many years) that was especially made for the occasion (Hernández
Príncipe, 2003[1621], p. 743). In his chronicle of Inka life, Guaman
Poma (1980[1615], pp. 217[245], 275[302], 306[334]) makes sev-
eral references to chicha that is aged for a month called yamor
aca (yamor toctoy, yamur aca), noting that it was prepared by the
aqlla for consumption by the Inka king and for serving at ceremo-
nies accompanying the Inti Raimi festivities.
In terms of understanding the resources, labor, and time neces-
sary to assemble vast quantities of chicha for a feast, these exam-
ples of aged chicha suggest that it is indeed possible for a small
number of people to amass a large quantity of chicha through
stockpiling. In reality, existing accounts indicate that aged chicha
was made in small quantities for special occasions.
Finally, while there are potentially great scale efficiencies dur-
ing the cooking step, many people may gather to stir the pots for
social reasons. At the religious feasts in Piura discussed above, a
number of small hearths (each set up for two pots) were set up,
rather than fewer hearths with more pots. While less efficient in
terms of labor and fuel, one could argue that many hearths are
established precisely to emphasize the participatory nature of food
preparation for the feast, and to reinforce relations between cooks
(see also Allen (in press)). Similarly, for the village of Eten in Lam-
bayeque, León Barandiarán and Paredes (1934, p. 298) describe fes-
tive work parties (mingas), where participants gathered to brew
chicha. Unfortunately, no other details are provided, but here
again, the social nature of cooking for a feast is highlighted.
Discussion and conclusions
The observations of this study can be applied in a number of
ways by Andeanists and others interested in beer production in
the archaeological record. First, it provides information on the
material correlates of brewing in two different organizational con-
texts: large-scale production with permanent facilities, and small-
scale household production. Information on large-scale, temporary
brewing episodes, where households pooled their labor and brew-
ing pots, was also collected. Archaeologically, large-scale, perma-
nent production would be easiest to identify and examples have
already been documented at several prehispanic sites in the Andes
(as noted above), representing production sponsored by elites or
state institutions.
Moore’s work on chicha production at the Chimú provincial
administrative site of Manchan, on the north coast of Peru, indi-
cated that chicha could also be produced for feasts by attached
households. In other words, labor continued to be organized at
the household level, but the aggregate yield was high.1 Archaeolog-
ically, this kind of attached household production may not produce
permanent, large-scale facilities and may be more difficult to iden-
tify. In Moore’s example, the inference that production was for the
state was drawn from the location of the producing households (at
an administrative center), and the quantity of discarded afrecho
from a single brewing episode, which suggested a much higher yield
than would have been consumed by a household. If attached house-
holds were regularly producing surplus beer, i.e., were brewing spe-
cialists, it is conceivable that they would have permanent areas
dedicated to the different brewing steps as well as a higher number
of brewing vessels than other households.
Household production for daily domestic consumption might
be difficult but not impossible to identify in the archaeological re-
cord. In Lambayeque and Piura, there are vessels exclusively used
for the cooking and cooling steps, while the narrow-necked jar
forms used for fermentation are also used for water storage. Cer-
tain tools (dippers, long stirring sticks or paddles, strainers) are
used only for beer production. We cannot assume that these pat-
terns characterized prehispanic household beer production: there
may have been multiple uses in the past of forms that today are
dedicated solely to chicha production, the same forms may have
had entirely different uses in the past, or old forms used for brew-
ing may no longer exist. We can, however, begin to systematically
look within household assemblages for forms that could have func-
tioned for beer cooking, cooling, and fermentation, and look for
other physical evidence (e.g., residues, possibly pitting (Arthur,
2003)) on large jars and cooking vessels. The pottery used for
brewing should be relatively large compared to other vessels, since
a week’s supply of beer is prepared at a time, and because daily
consumption is relatively high compared to the volume of other
cooked foods.
In Lambayeque, a second hearth is established for household
brewing and it is located outside of the house. Food for daily meals
is cooked indoors on hearths atop platforms and pots are within
easy reach of a standing cook. Chicha hearths are established out-
doors on the ground, and pots are stirred with long sticks or pad-
dles. I neglected to inquire about this difference, and if chicha
has always (i.e., within living memory) been brewed on a separate
hearth. Separate, outdoor hearths may be used because of the large
pot sizes, prolonged cooking times, and high temperatures. It is
possible that brewing hearths may also be characterized by differ-
ent patterns of fuel use, e.g., the use of species that burn hotter or
larger logs, but this idea remains to be tested. Archaeologists inter-
ested in investigating domestic economies and beer production
might consider expanding excavations into the areas outside of
houses where brewing activities (cooking, maize drying) may have
taken place.
Perhaps hardest to identify archaeologically would be periodic
feasts with pooled labor and pots. If there was a common open area
1
The pattern of aggregated household production also characterized state pottery
production in the Inka imperial provinces (Hayashida 1998; Hayashida 1999).
 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
where these feasts were held, e.g., a central plaza, then there is a
higher probability that multiple hearths, depressions (for cooling
vessels) and perhaps residues could be detected. If location chan-
ged, e.g., together with rotating sponsorship, evidence for these
feasts may be quite ephemeral and difficult to detect.
The study also examined labor and raw material inputs, and is
thus useful to researchers interested in determining the resources
needed to host a feast. It was observed that labor requirements
vary greatly for different steps. Stirring the chicha as it cooks, even
if preparing a large batch, is the least labor intensive step and a sin-
gle brewer can tend many pots, resulting in an economy of scale.
Milling, working, and sieving are the most intensive, with no ob-
served economies of scale. If similar brewing techniques were used
in the past, a prospective feast sponsor would have to assemble a
sufficient number of people to get through these bottlenecks. Be-
cause of the perishability of most beers, the larger the feast, the
more people the sponsor would have to recruit. Yet accounts of
aged chicha were also recorded, opening up the possibility that
beer could have been made in small batches and accumulated over
time for a feast. Aged chicha was described by informants as more
alcoholic and today is served on the north coast in small portions. If
the same were true in the past, then the overall yields served at a
feast featuring aged beer might have been smaller.
It was noted that not all Andean brewers mill the grain before
cooking, or work and sieve the chicha. This variation in brewing
techniques should be kept in mind when applying the findings of
this study. The labor requirements for other chicha recipes may
be very different, and the bottlenecks observed here may not exist
or be minimized with other brewing techniques. Thus researchers
investigating brewing in the archaeological record will want to
reconstruct as closely as possible the particular decisions that
brewers made at each step of the process, which may be quite dif-
ferent from those observed in contemporary accounts. Comparison
with other ethnographic and historical cases also serves as a re-
minder that brewing practices need to be considered in their full-
est possible cultural context. Thus in one case, brewing sediments
are treated as trash, in another as food for people or animals, and in
another as a substance representing the sun’s divinity. These dif-
ferences will affect the organization and techniques of brewing,
how raw materials, tools, products, and by-products are treated,
and how they might be represented in the archaeological record.
There are many aspects of north coastal brewing that were not
systematically addressed by the current study, and these remain to
be investigated. How is labor recruited? What is the explanation
for change or innovation in some tools or techniques, while others
persist? How is change tied to larger economic or social condi-
tions? What are the different links between brewers and consum-
ers and how do they affect brewing decisions? Much more
information also remains to be collected on the significance, orga-
nization, and material consequences of feasts involving pooled la-
bor and equipment. It is hoped that the study will stimulate further
research by Andeanists and others into the ethnoarchaeology of
brewing to help interpret the uses and meanings of alcohol in
the past.
Acknowledgments
I thank the brewers of Piura and Lambayeque who welcomed me
into their homes, patiently answered my questions, and allowed me
to watch and photograph them at work. Logistical support for the
project was provided by Alfredo Kuroki in Chulucanas and by Carlos
Elera, Victor Curay, and Natalia Guzmán of the Sicán National Mu-
seum in Ferreñafe. The manuscript also benefitted from the percep-
tive comments of two anonymous reviewers, Mark Schulze, and the
many home brewers who attended talks based on the research.
Joshi Fullop (BUZZ Homebrewing Club at the University of Illinois)
173
and Joseph Awika (University of Missouri, Dept. of Food Science)
patiently answered my questions about the brewing process. I
alone am responsible for any errors. This article is dedicated to Sr.
Kuroki for his longstanding efforts to preserve the culture and his-
tory of the Chulucanas region.
References
Adams, R.L., 2004. An ethnoarchaeological study of feasting in Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 56–78.
Allen, C., 2002. The Hold Life Has: Coca and Cultural Identity in an Andean
Community. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Allen, C., in press. ‘‘Let’s drink together my dear!” Persistent ceremonies in a
changing community. In: Jennings, J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and
Society in the Andes. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Anderson, K., in press. Tiwanaku influence on local drinking patterns in
Cochabamba, Bolivia. In: Jennings, J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and
Society in the Andes. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Anonymous, 1961[1720]. Información anónima sobre la vida y costumbres del
pueblo de Virú, Provincia de Trujillo, Departamento de La Libertad. Con un
recetario criollo del maestro Barbero Don Feliciano de Bergara. Siglo XVIII. Año
1720. Revista del Archivo Nacional del Perú 25, pp. 10–25.
Arriaga, P.J. de, 1968[1621]. Extirpación de la Idolatría del Pirú. In: Esteve Barba, F.
(Ed.), Cronicas Peruanas de Interés Indígena. Ediciones Atlas, Madrid.
Arthur, J.W., 2003. Brewing beer: status, wealth and ceramic use alteration
among the Gamo of south-western Ethiopia. World Archaeology 34, 516–
526.
Bertonio, L., 1984[1612]. Vocabulario de la Lengua Aymara. Centro de Estudios de la
Realidad Económica y Social, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Bowser, B., 2000. From pottery to politics: an ethnoarchaeological study of political
factionalism, ethnicity, and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 219–248.
Bowser, B., 2004. The Amazonian house: a place of women’s politics, pottery, and
prestige. Expedition 46, 18–23.
Bowser, B., Patton, J., 2004. Domestic spaces as public places: an
ethnoarchaeological case study of houses, gender, and politics in the
Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11, 157–181.
Bray, T., in press. The role of chicha in Inca state expansion: a distributional study of
Inca aríbalos. In: Jennings, J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and Society in the
Andes. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Brumfiel, E.M., 2006. Cloth, gender, continuity and change: fabricating unity in
anthropology. American Anthropologist 108, 862–877.
Brüning, H.H., 1990. Fotodokumente aus Nordperu von Hans Heinrich Brüning
(1848–1928). Hamburgischen Museums für Völkerkunde, Hamburg.
Camino, L., 1982. Los que Vencieron el Tiempo: Simbilá, Costa Norte, Perfil
Etnográfico de un Centro Alfarero. Centro de Investigación y Promoción del
Campesinado, Piura.
Camino, L., 1987. Chicha de Maíz: Bebida y Vida del Pueblo Catacaos. Centro de
Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado, Peru.
Castillo, L.J., 2005. Ideología, ritual y poder en la consolidación, colapso y
reconstitución del estado Mochica del Jequetepeque, el Proyecto Arqueológico
San José de Moro (1991–2004). In: Castillo, L.J. (Ed.), Programa Arqueológico San
José de Moro, Temporada 2004. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima,
pp. 11–81.
Chapdelaine, C., 2001. The growing power of a Moche urban class. In: Pillsbury, J.
(Ed.), Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru. National Gallery of Art,
Washington, Washington D.C, pp. 69–87.
Cobo, B., 1990[1653]. Inca Religion and Customs. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Cook, A., Glowacki, M., 2003. Pots, politics, and power: Huari ceramic assemblages
and imperial administration. In: Bray, T.L. (Ed.), The Archaeology and Politics of
Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New
York, pp. 173–202.
Cutler, H., Cardenas, M., 1947. Chicha, a native South American beer. Botanical
Museum Leaflets 13, 33–60.
DeBoer, W., 2001. The big drink: feast and forum in the Upper Amazon. In: Dietler,
M., Hayden, B. (Eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on
Food, Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp.
215–239.
Dietler, M., 1990. Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and
the case of Early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9,
352–406.
Dietler, M., 2001. Theorizing the feast: rituals of consumption, commensal politics,
and power in African contexts. In: Dietler, M., Hayden, B. (Eds.), Feasts:
Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 65–114.
Dietler, M., 2006. Alcohol: anthropological/archaeological perspectives. Annual
Review of Anthropology 35, 229–249.
Dulanto, J., 2002. The archaeological study of ancestor cult practices: the case of
Pampa Chica, a Late Initial Period and Early Horizon site on the central coast of
Peru. In: Silverman, H. (Ed.), The Space and Place of Death. American
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 97–117.
Franquemont, C., Franquemont, E., Davis, W., Plowman, T., King, S.R., Sperling, C.R.,
Niezgoda, C., 1990. The Ethnobotany of Chinchero, an Andean Community in
Southern Peru. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
174 F.M. Hayashida / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 161–174
Garofalo, L.J., 2001. The Ethno-Economy of Food, Drink, and Stimulants: The Making
of Race in Colonial Lima and Cuzco. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Garofalo, L.J., 2003. Bebidas incas en copas coloniales: los curacas del mercado de
chicha del Cuzco, 1640–1700. In: Cahill, D., Tovías, B. (Eds.), Élites Indígenas en
los Andes: Nobles, Caciques y Cabildantes bajo el Yugo Colonial. Ediciones
Abya-Yala, Quito.
Gero, J., 1990. Pottery, power, and parties. Archaeology, 52–56.
Goldstein, D.J., 2007. Forests and Fires: A Paleoethnobotanical Assessment of the
Impact of the Middle Sicán Pyrotechnology on the Dry Tropical Forests of the La
Leche River Valley, Lambayeque, Peru (950–1050 C.E.), Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
Goldstein, D.J., Coleman, R.C., Williams, P.R., in press. You are what you drink: a
socio-cultural reconstruction of prehispanic fermented beverage use at Cerro
Baúl, Moquegua, Peru. In: Jennings, J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and
Society in the Andes. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Goldstein, D.J., Shimada, I., 2007. Middle Sicán multicraft production: resource
management and labor organization. In: Shimada, I. (Ed.), Craft Production in
Complex Societies. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 44–67.
Goldstein, P., 1993. House, community, and the earliest Tiwanaku colony: domestic
patterns and state integration in Omo M12, Moquegua. In: Aldenderfer, M.S.
(Ed.), Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-
Central Andes. University of Iowa, Iowa City, pp. 25–41.
Goldstein, P., 2003. From stew-eaters to maize-drinkers: the chicha economy and the
Tiwanaku expansion. In: Bray, T. (Ed.), The Archaeology and Politics of Food and
Feasting in Early States and Empires. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp. 143–172.
Guaman Poma de Ayala, F., 1980[1615]. El Primer Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno.
Siglo Veintiuno, Mexico City.
Hayashida, F.M., 1998. New insights into Inka pottery production. In: Shimada, I.
(Ed.), Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization, and Approaches. University
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, pp. 313–338.
Hayashida, F.M., 1999. Style, technology, and administered production: The
manufacture of Inka pottery in the Leche Valley, Peru. Latin American
Antiquity 10, 1–16.
Hayashida, F.M., in press. Chicha histories: prehispanic chicha production in the
Andes and the use of ethnographic and historical analogues. In: Jennings, J.,
Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and Society in the Andes. University of Florida
Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Hernández Príncipe, R., 2003 [1621]. Visita de Rodrigo Hernández Príncipe a Ocros
[1621]. In: Duviols, P. (Ed.), Procesos y Idolatrías: Cajatambo, Siglo XVII.
Pontifícia Universidad Católica del Perú and the Instituto Francés de Estudios
Andinos, Lima, pp. 731–746.
Jennings, J., 2005. La chichera y el patrón: chicha and the energetics of feasting in
the prehistoric Andes. In: Conlee, C., Ogburn, D., Vaughn, K. (Eds.), Foundations
of Power in the Prehispanic Andes. American Anthropological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 241–259.
Jennings, J., in press. Drink, power, and society in the Andes: an introduction. In:
Jennings, J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power and Society in the Andes. University
of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Jennings, J., Antrobus, K.L., Atencio, S.J., Glavich, E., Johnson, R., Loffler, G., Luu, C.,
2005. ‘‘Drinking beer in a blissful mood”: alcohol production, operational
chains, and feasting in the ancient world. Current Anthropology 46, 275–303.
Koehler, C.G., 1995. Wine amphoras in ancient Greek trade. In: McGovern, P.,
Fleming, S.J., Katz, S.H. (Eds.), The Origins and History of Wine. Gordon and
Breach, Australia, pp. 323–338.
León Barandiarán, A.D., Paredes, R., 1934. A Golpe de Arpa: Folk-lore Lambayecano
de Humorismo y Costumbres. Lima.
Leonard Jr., A., 1995. Canaanite jars and the Late Bronze Age Aegeo-Levantine wine
trade. In: McGovern, P., Fleming, S.J., Katz, S.H. (Eds.), The Origins and History of
Wine. Gordon and Breach, Australia, pp. 233–254.
Mangan, J.E., 2005. Trading Roles: Gender, Ethnicity, and the Urban Economy in
Colonial Potosí. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Martínez Compañón y Bujanda, B.J., 1978. Trujillo del Peru. Ediciones Cultura
Hispánica, Madrid.
McGovern, P., 2003. Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Moore, J.D., 1981. Chimu socio-economic organization: preliminary data from
Manchan, Casma Valley, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 19, 115–128.
Moore, J.D., 1989. Pre-hispanic beer in coastal Peru: technology and social context
of prehistoric production. American Anthropologist 91, 682–695.
Morris, C., 1974. Reconstructing patterns of non-agricultural production in the Inca
economy: archaeology and documents in institutional analysis. In: Moore, C.B.
(Ed.), Reconstructing Complex Societies: An Archaeological Colloquium.
Morris, C., 1975. Maize beer in the economics, politics, and religion of the Inca. In:
Gastineau, C.F., Darby, W.J., Turner, T.B. (Eds.), Fermented Food Beverages in
Nutrition. Academic Press, New York.
Moseley, M.E., Nash, D.J., Williams, P.R., deFrance, S.D., Miranda, A., Ruales, M., 2005.
Burning down the brewery: establishing and evacuating an ancient imperial
colony at Cerro Baúl, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 102, 17264–17271.
Nicholson, G.E., 1960. Chicha maize types and chicha manufacture in Peru.
Economic Botany 14, 290–299.
Orlove, B., Schmidt, E., 1995. Swallowing their pride: indigenous and industrial beer
in Peru and Bolivia. Theory and Society 24, 271–298.
Pasiecznik, N.M., 2001. The Prosopis juliflora–Prosopis pallida Complex: A
Monograph. HRDA, Coventry.
Perlov, D., in press. Working through daughters: strategies for gaining and
maintaining social power among the chicheras of highland Bolivia. In:
Jennings, J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and Society in the Andes.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Prieto, O.G., 2005. Cerámica utilitária Chimú: una propuesta desde las
excavaciones en el Área 35. In: Castillo, L.J. (Ed.), Programa Arqueológico
San José de Moro Temporada 2005. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Lima, pp. 110–125.
Prieto, O.G., 2004. Área 35: Ocupación doméstico/productiva Chimú en San José de
Moro. In: Castillo, L.J. (Ed.), Programa Arqueológico San José de Moro
Temporada 2004. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, pp. 140–154.
Ramírez, S.E., 1996. The World Upside Down: Cross-cultural Contact and Conflict in
Sixteenth Century Peru. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Randall, R., 1993. Los dos vasos. Cosmovisión y política de la embriaguez desde el
inkanato hasta la colonia. In: Saignes, T. (Ed.), Borrachera y Memoria: La
Experiencia de lo Sagrado en los Andes. HISBOL, La Paz.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, M., 1977. Algunos comentarios hechos a las
ordenanzas del Doctor Cuenca. Historia y Cultura 9, 119–154.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, M., 1989. Costa Peruana Prehispánica. Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
Samuel, D., 1996. Archaeology of ancient Egyptian beer. Journal of the American
Society of Brewing Chemists 54, 3–12.
Schaedel, R. P., 1988. La Etnografía Muchik de las Fotografías de H. Brüning 1886–
1925. COFIDE (Corporación Financiera de Desarollo S.A.), Lima.
Segura, R., 2001. Rito y Economía en Cajamarquilla: Investigaciones Arqueológicas
en el Conjunto Arquitectónico Julio C. Tello. Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú, Lima.
Shimada, I., 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. University of Austin
Press, Austin.
Shimada, I., 2001. Late Moche urban craft production: a first approximation. In:
Pillsbury, J. (Ed.), Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru. National Gallery
of Art, Washington, DC, pp. 177–205.
Soriano, S., 1938. Estudio microbiológico del proceso de fermentación de la
‘‘chicha”. Revista del Insituto Bacteriológico 8, 231–321.
Stahl, A., 1993. Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in
historical perspective. American Antiquity 58, 235–260.
Stronach, D., 1995. The imagery of the wine bowl: wine in Assyria in the early first
millenium B.C. In: McGovern, P., Fleming, S.J., Katz, S.H. (Eds.), The Origins and
History of Wine. Gordon and Breach, Australia, pp. 175–196.
Tschudi, J.J., 1918. Contribuciones a la Civilización y Lingüistica del Perú Antiguo.
Tomo I. Imprenta y Librería Sanmartí y Ca, Lima.
Valdéz, L., 2002. Maraynioc: evidencias de producción de chicha en un
establecemiento Wari. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 26, 69–86.
Valdizán, H., and Maldonado, A., 1922. La Medicina Popular Peruana. Lima.
Velásquez, O., 1996. Cultura, Tradición e Idiosincrasia del Poblador Piurano.
Universidad Nacional del Trujillo, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Trujillo.
Weismantel, M., in press. Have a drink: beer and history in the Andes. In: Jennings,
J., Bowser, B. (Eds.), Drink, Power, and Society in the Andes. University of Florida
Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Wright, J.C., 1995. Empty cups and empty jugs: the social role of wine in Minoan
and Mycenean Societies. In: McGovern, P., Fleming, S.J., Katz, S.H. (Eds.), The
Origins and History of Wine. Gordon and Breach, Australia, pp. 287–310.
Zalles Cueto, A.A., 1990. Los niños muk’eadores de los valles de Chuquisaca: la
chicha, el muk’u: cambios y continuidades en el Sur Andino. Hombre y
Ambiente 15, 57–66.