new perspectives on moche political organization

Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Collo Quia

Series Editor
Joanne Pillsbury

Editorial Board
Elizabeth Hill Boone
Gary Urton
David 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 Oaks

Trustees for Harvard University
Washington, 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  2010
985'.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 Organization
Luis 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 Moche
Santiago Uceda Castillo

v
vi   Contents
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 System
Jean-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
 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   Foreword
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
 Foreword   ix
Preface and Acknowledgments  

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 Pillsbury
Director of Studies,
Pre-Columbian Program
Dumbarton Oaks
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).

Note
1 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
 chapter 13

religion, ethnic identity, and power

in the moche world
A View from the Frontiers

krzysztof makowski

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.

280
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   281

Style and Identity

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 cere-
monial 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

table 1  Comparisons between the Virú-Gallinazo and Moche culture-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 plates
Occasionally 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
   vases
Chamber and pit burials in extended position lying on the back; copper objects were placed in
   the mouth
Headdresses with an upright feather and two stepped signs; types of dress
Ceremonial architecture built with cane-marked adobe bricks, sometimes decorated with
   polychrome reliefs
Agglutinated domestic architecture and elite orthogonal structures
Defensive and ceremonial enclosures of the “castle” type
Recurring and direct association of diagnostic components in the same habitational and
   ceremonial spaces, burial chambers, and cemeteries
Same regional distribution prevails on the North Coast, between the Upper Piura Valley and
   Huarmey Valley

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
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   283

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, Monumental Architecture, and Urbanism

The 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
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   285

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.

Leadership and the Elite

Bawden (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
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   287

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.

The Moche Frontiers

Taking 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 special-
ists 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
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   289

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.
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   291

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 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 figure 7  Bottle with three-color fineline
a ceremonial jar, a Moche II form with Moche painting depicting a bicephalous dragon. Museo
III three-color fineline decoration depicting a Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera. Photograph by
mountain god (Campana and Morales 1997) Daniel Giannoni.
and a “moon animal.” Early Moche–Late Moche
Transition. Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco
Herrera, Lima. Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.
292   Makowski

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

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.
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   293

figure 9  Vicús-Vicús statuette of a female figure 10  Vicús-Vicús statuette of a female

personage (Amaro 1994: 62–63). Moche ware personage (Amaro 1994: 62–63). Vicús ware and
and finish with three-color painting. Asociación finish. Asociación Cultural Enrico Poli, Lima.
Cultural Enrico Poli, Lima. Photograph by Photograph by Daniel Giannoni.
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.
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   295

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
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   297

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

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
 298   Makowski
figure 14  Ceramic club. 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 15  Ceramic snail shell. Details painted
in white. Orange Early Moche style. 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.
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   299

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

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.

figure 21  Sculpted stirrup-spout bottle, Moche

IV style, depicting a seated coastal warrior. Private
collection, El Molino, Culebras Valley. Photograph
by Milosz Giersz.

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.

Some Conclusions: Early Moche versus Late Moche

In 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 22  Stratigraphic profile of the central part of the structure disturbed by looters at Quillapampa, a Moche elite dwelling. The adobe-brick burial
chamber was sealed in the next-to-last occupation phase (floor 2). The lower levels have Virú-Gallinazo and Early Moche ceramic materials. Middle
Horizon pottery is found on the surface. Excavations undertaken by the “Culebras Valley” Archaeological Project, Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú–Warsaw University Agreement. Drawing by Milosz Giersz.
Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   301
302   Makowski

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.

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 limited
use 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,
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   303

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  Calibrated 14C dates and Larco’s stylistic chronology

Date (Cal. 14C ce) Phase
Transitional
Early Lambayeque
Epigonic Moche
800 Late Moche
Polychrome Moche, Moro Moche V style
Middle–Late Moche
Characteristics of Larco phases III, IV, and V
Late Gallinazo
500
Early Moche
Characteristics of Larco phases I, II, and III
Middle Gallinazo
200
Precedents of the Moche style
Early Gallinazo
0
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
 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche World   305

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.

Note
1 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.
 Index
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, 321
Alexander the Great, 78
allegiances: Maya, 313; Moche, 47
Alva, Walter, 7, 34, 49, 51
ancestors, 23, 41
Anders, Martha, 66
animal 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, 24
architectural 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, 80
Arnold, Philip J., III, 45
art history, in Moche studies, 1, 6–7
art production. See workshops
art works, Greek, 77–79
art 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, 182–183
Athens, 78–79
Aztec, 180n1, 318–319
Aztec Triple Alliance, 248, 250, 319, 321
bags, fabric, 233, 235
ballgames, 27–28
373
374    Index
bats, 22–23
Bawden, Garth, 6, 35, 135, 286, 307–308
beans, 23, 46n4
Bennett, Wendell C., 174, 224, 232–234
Benson, Elizabeth P., xiii, 17–45, 140, 283, 304,
310, 313, 318, 321, 322
Berezkin, Yuri, 79
Billman, Brian R., 41, 181–199, 313
Binford, Lewis, xiii
Binford, Sally, xiii
black-on-white painting, 190
blackware, at Huancaco, 215, 216, 219
blood, from human sacrifice, 56–58, 155
Bonampak (Mexico), murals at, 20, 22, 27, 30
Bonavia, Duccio, 296, 299
bones: Maya versus Moche treatment of,
25–27; from Sacrifice Ceremony, 62, 65
Bourget, Steve, 33, 153, 175, 201–222, 227, 246,
271, 284, 308, 311, 312, 322
Briceño Rosario, Jesús, 34
Burger, Richard, 319
Burial Theme, 123, 318
burials, Maya, 11–12, 23–27
burials, 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, 239
burning activities, at Huaca Cao Viejo, 124
Cacaxtla (Mexico), 30
calendars, 18, 169
Callejón, 224
Campo Sicap, 112
canals. See irrigation systems; specific canals
cane casing, 239
cántaros, 189, 190
Canziani Amico, José, 159–180
Cao, tomb of Señora de, 123–124, 125, 127,
129
captives: kings as, 28, 30; of Maya, 27–31; of
Moche, 29–30, 56–58
Carneiro, Robert L., 286
Casma Valley, 173
Castillo B., Luis Jaime, 1–16, 18, 42, 49,
83–108, 155, 305, 307, 308, 313, 316, 322
Castillo de Ampanú, 296, 305n1
catfish motif, 123, 129, 205, 241, 245
cave burials, 118
cemeteries, isolated, in Chicama Valley, 114,
118. See also burials
centers. See administrative centers; ceremonial
centers; specific sites
centralization: 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, 281
ceramic production: Early Moche versus
Late Moche, 281; in Moche Valley, trans-
formation 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, 33
ceramics, 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

Piura Valley, 288–296; and political
organization models, 12; use of term, 251n2
ceramics, Virú-Moche, 281
ceremonial activities. See ritual practices
ceremonial 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), 123
Cerro Blanco, 132, 162
Cerro Catalina, 99, 103, 105
Cerro Cementerio, 228, 232
Cerro Chepén, 99, 100, 102, 105
Cerro Colina, 266
Cerro Compositan, 209, 222
Cerro Grande, 128
Cerro Mayal, 116, 117, 191–192
Cerro Oreja, 181, 186, 189
Cerro Pampa Grande, 179
Cerro Portachuelo, 128
Cerro Sajino, 235
Cerro Sechín, 319
Chafán canal, 95, 104
Chamán River, 91, 93, 97, 105
Chamán 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, 6–7
Chancay River, 161
Chang, Kwang-Chih, 309
Chapdelaine, Claude, 36, 71, 74, 226, 245,
252–279
charisma, 41
chaupiyunga zone, 70, 71, 82n1
Chavín. See Cupisnique
Chavín de Huantar, 319, 320
Chepén canal, 95, 104–105
Chicama River, 128, 161
Chicama 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,
Index    375
128; residential sites in, 114, 116–118; state
religion in, 63; territoriality in, 171–173;
urban centers of, 171. See also specific sites
Chicamita, 118
chicha, 145–147, 163
Chichén Itzá (Mexico), 21
chiefdoms: 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, 93
Childe, Gordon V., 281
Chimor, kingdom of, 3
Chimú: 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, 161
Cholula, 309
Christianity: ritual practices of, 55; ritual
vestments of, 68–69; symbols of, 59
city blocks, of Huacas de Moche urban
nucleus, 145, 147, 156–157
city 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, 192
ciudadelas, 179
clans, 34
climatic crises. See El Niño; natural disasters
clothing: in art works, 22; in Sacrifice
Ceremony, 51, 55, 68–69, 318
Coe, Michael D., 36
coercion: in political economy, 184; in power,
9; in Santa Valley occupation, 269, 274
coevolution, of Moche and other cultures,
70–74
coexistence, 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, 73–74
Cohen, Beth, 79
Collier, Donald, 224
colonial–early republican era, 1, 3–4
colonization, in Santa Valley, 226
communication, mass, in political economy,
186, 193, 198–199
condors, 23
conquistadors, 3
construction blocks. See city blocks
Copán, 25–27, 28
corn, 194
corporate architecture, at Huaca Santa Clara,
232, 235–239
cosmic model, four-world-directions, 22
cosmovision, 112
crafts, as sign of power, 35
cross, in Christianity, 59
Cross, Temple of the (Palenque), 40, 41
Culebras Valley, 296–303
cultural drift, in Jequetepeque Valley, 83,
106
cultures: 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, 287
curacazogos. See chiefdoms
dancing, 32, 61, 69n3
Day, Kent, 6
death, transformation in beliefs about,
189–190. See also ancestors; burials
Deeds, Eric E., 194
deer hunts, 22, 25, 31
defensive structures. See fortifications
demographic crises, 268–269
Dillehay, Tom D., 31, 35, 37, 101, 286, 307, 311,
312, 313, 316
dippers, 201, 202, 212, 213
direct rule: in Santa Valley, 273, 278; in
territorial states, 227, 247–248
dismemberment, in Sacrifice Ceremony, 58,
59, 63, 65
DNA analysis, of Gallinazo-Moche relation-
ship, 74–75, 76
dogs, 23
domestic wares: in identification of Moche
sites, 203; transformation of, 189–191
dominant-subordinate political relationships,
70–71, 81, 322
domination, resistance to, 183, 184
Donnan, 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, 22
drought, 31. See also El Niño; natural disasters
duality, at El Brujo Complex, 120, 130, 173
dwellings. See residential sites
dynasties, possibility of existence of, 37
Earle, Timothy K., 282
Early 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, 11
earthquakes, at Huaca Cao Viejo, 129–130
ecological events: in Santa Valley, 270–272.
See also natural disasters
economy. See political economy
effigy vessels, 24, 36
El 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

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, 150–151
El 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, 108–109n1
elite, Greek, 79
elite, Maya, 18, 25; burials of, 11–12
elite, 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, 237–242
empires, territorial states as, 247
environmental disasters. See natural disasters
environmental stress, and warfare, 31
equality, in Moche Valley political economy,
198
ethnic identity, art style and, 281–283, 316–318
Evans, Clifford, Jr., 38, 42, 224, 225, 286
expansionism. See territorial expansionism
eye, left, 123–124
fabric. See textiles
face-neck jars: at Huaca Santa Clara, 242;
in Jequetepeque Valley, 93, 109n3; Moche
versus Gallinazo, 73
Faclo canal, 89
factionalism: 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
Index    377
Farfán, 95, 105
Fash, Barbara, 316, 321
Fash, William L., 306–322
field archaeology: foreign versus Peruvian, 7,
8; in history of Moche studies, 1, 4–9
Figure A, tomb of (Sipán), 49, 51, 52, 63
Figure B, tomb of (Sipán), 49, 53, 63
Figure C, tomb of (San José de Moro), 49, 51,
54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 68
figurines, at Huancaco, 215, 218
fineline ceramics, 190–191, 319–320
fineware 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., 309
flaring bowls, 201, 202
floreros, 189, 190, 244, 245
Flowery Wars, 321
Fogel, Heidy, 228–229, 230
Foliated Cross Tablet, Temple of the
(Palenque), 19
food storage, at Huaca Santa Clara, 232–235
Ford, James A., 220, 221, 224, 311, 316–317
foreign archaeologists, 7, 8
fortifications, 35; in Jequetepeque Valley, 99,
101–104, 105; Maya versus Moche, 31; in
Santa Valley, 302; in Virú Valley, 299
fortresses. See fortifications
four-world-directions cosmic model, 22
fragmentation. See factionalism
Franco Jordán, Régulo, 18, 63, 110–131
free market system, 163
frontiers, 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 culture
Gallinazo 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, 251n2
Gallinazo 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, 110–131
Geertz, Clifford, 315
genetic isolation, in Jequetepeque Valley, 106
genetic similarity: of Gallinazo versus Moche,
74–75, 76; of sacrifice victims, 155
geographical distribution, of state religion,
60–68
geography, in Moche political structure, 37
Ghezzi, Iván, 295
Giersz, Milosz, 296
glyphs, Maya, 27, 30
gods: at Huacas de Moche, 140, 150–152; kings
associated with, 40–42; patron, 318, 319, 320
Golte, Jürgen, 35
goods, exchange of, at Huacas de Moche,
144–147, 156, 163, 165
goods, luxury, warfare for, 29
goods, mobilization of, in political economy,
182, 183
goods, 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, 248
Greek pottery, sociopolitical reconstruction
based on, 77–79
Grube, Nikolai, 27, 31
Guad-12, 273
Guad-192, 273
Guadalupe canal, 95, 104, 105
Guadalupito: 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, 183
Hacienda 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, 82n2
haplotypes, 75, 82n2
headdresses: of kings, 31; as lineage symbols,
36–37, 46n5; in Sacrifice Ceremony, 48, 49,
60, 68
headgear, of warriors, in art, 29
hegemonic city-states, 247–248
hegemony, 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., 35
Hero Twins, 32, 36
Herodotus, 77, 78
heterarchy, 285, 313
hierarchies: political, definitions of, 309;
social, 170
hills: of Chicama Valley, 112, 116, 119; and
damage to sites, 112
Hocquenghem, Anne Marie, 18, 48–49, 153,
283, 305
Holmquist, Ulla, 155
horizon, cultural, 223
huaca(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, 269
Huaca Colorada, 93
Huaca Cortada. See Huaca El Brujo
Huaca 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,

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, 206
Huaca Facho, 65–66
Huaca Fortaleza, 178, 179
Huaca la Merced, 73
Huaca Letrada, 73
Huaca Prieta, 115, 119
Huaca Rosario, 117
Huaca San Pedro, 273, 274
Huaca 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,
Index    379
232–235, 244; textiles at, 233, 235, 241, 243;
Virú style at, 227, 229
Huaca Santa Rosa, 81
Huacas 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, 227
Huancaco ceramic style, 224, 227, 245–246
Huancaco Decorated ceramics, 221
Huancaco Period, 220–222
Huarmey Valley, 173, 296, 297, 299
human figures, Maya versus Moche, 20
human sacrifice, Maya, 27, 30, 31
human 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, 36
hunting motifs, 22, 25, 31
iconography, archaeological, 1. See also specific
symbols
iconography, Maya, 17–27
iconography, 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, 106
Inca, 247–248, 286
indirect rule: in city-states, 248, 249–250; in
Santa Valley, 273, 278
Inscriptions, Temple of the (Palenque), 42–44
irrigation 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, 248
Itzamná (god), 20
Jackson, Margaret A., 34, 37, 192
jade, 17
jaguars, 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, 93
Jequetepeque River, 104
Jequetepeque 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, 18
Kerr, Justin, 36
kings, 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, 313
Kosok, Paul, 308
Kossinna, Gustaf, 281
Kroeber, Alfred, 4–5, 308

La Campanilla, 112
La Leche Valley, 73
La Mina, 12
Labná (Mexico), 22, 24
labor mobilization, in political economy, 182,
183; of Moche Valley, 186, 194–197
Lambayeque 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, 160
land ownership, 160, 287
Larco 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, 230
Late 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, 11
Late Preceramic Period, 127
leaders. See rulers
left eye, 123–124
Licapa complex, 120
Lima, Rafael Larco Herrera Museum in, 5, 6
lineage: of elite, 286–288; of rulers, 36–37,
286–288, 314
literacy, of Maya, 17, 44
local populations, in political economy, 184
Loma 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, 288
looting: 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
Index    381
Los Algarrobales, 73
Lumbreras, Luis G., 11
Lurín, 295–296
Lyon, Patricia, 49
Macabí Island, 119
Mackey, Carol J., 6, 188, 189
Maize God, 27
Makowski Hanula, Krzysztof, 11, 155, 280–305,
310, 314, 317
mallqui, 27
mampuestos, 97, 105
Manzanilla, Linda, 309
“Marine Twin” (mural), 152
marriage, 106
Martin, Simon, 27, 31
Martínez Compañón y Bujanda, Baltasar
Jaime, 3
Masanca, 246
mass communication, in political economy,
186, 193, 198–199
Maya, 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 Facho
McClelland, Donna, 191, 316, 321
Medical School of Japan, 155
mesh fabric bags, 233, 235
metalwork, 17, 144, 145
Metropolitan Museum (New York), 66
Middle Gallinazo, 230
Middle Horizon, 88–89
Middle 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, 11
migration, from Moche Valley to Santa Valley,
270–271, 273, 274
military power, in political economy, 199.
See also warfare; warriors
Millaire, Jean-François, 12, 73, 188, 223–250
Millon, Clara, 315
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis,
74–75, 76
Moche (city). See Huacas de Moche urban
nucleus
Moche (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, 203
Moche II: ceramics in, 10, 203; Santa Valley
in, 255
Moche III, Santa Valley in, 255, 257–265, 269,
272–273, 277–279
Moche 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, 205
Moche River, 132, 162
Moche 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 trans-
formations in, 181; territorial contraction
in, 101; territoriality in, 171. See also specific
sites
Mochica, The (Benson), xiii
Mochica, use of term, xvn1. See also Moche
Mochica canal, 194, 196
Mocollope, 34, 112, 116, 117
molds, ceramic, 191, 276, 281
Montenegro, Jorge A., 72
Montículo 1 (El Brujo), 120
Montículo 2 (El Brujo), 120
Montículo 3 (El Brujo), 120
monumental sculpture, Moche versus Maya,
18–22
moon animals, 123
Moon Goddess, 20, 23, 42
Moro canal, 194, 196
Moseley, Michael E., 6, 77, 171, 194, 206, 226,
308
mounds. See huaca(s)
mountains, sacred, of Chicama Valley, 119,
128, 130
mtDNA. See mitochondrial DNA
Mujica, Elías, xiii
multiple-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, 320
mural paintings, Maya, 20, 22, 27, 30, 321
mural 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., 71
museums, Moche art in, xi, 1
music, 32
musical instruments, 190, 191
Nahua, 318–319
Naranjo, 313
narrative art, emergence of, 190–191
natural 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

natural resources, warfare over, 29
negative painting, 219
negotiation: 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, 45
networks, in political economy, 182, 183–184,
197–198
New Fire renovation ceremony, 169, 180n1
New York, Metropolitan Museum of, 66
North 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, 118–119
octopus motif, 205
oikumene, 319
ollas, 93, 109n3
Olmec, 23, 42, 45
opportunism, political: definition of, 85, 108;
in Jequetepeque Valley, 85, 88, 105–108
owls, 22, 93
Pacatnamú: burials at, 12; ceramics at, 12,
109n3; location of, 119; relationship with
other sites, 38
Pachacamac, 4
painting. See ceramics; mural paintings
palaces: of Huancaco, 175, 209, 311; Maya
versus Moche, 33
Palenque (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
Index    383
Pampa Esperanza, 194
Pampa 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, 128
Pañamarca: 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, 119
Panteón, 296, 299
parcialidades, 196, 197
Paredones building complex (El Brujo),
120–121
patios, distribution of goods at, 157
patrilinial succession, 37
patron gods, 318, 319, 320
patronage, 196–197
penis-shaped spouts, 245
persuasion, in political economy, 184
Peruvian archaeologists, 7, 8
Phases I–V. See Moche I–V
Piedra de Molino, 10, 128
Piedras Negras (Guatemala), 31, 32
pilgrimages, to El Brujo Complex, 110, 128
Pillsbury, Joanne, xiii
Piura 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, 203
political 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, xii
political 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 power
political unity, 78–79
politics, definition of, xii
Portachuelo de Charcape, 99, 103
portraiture: in ceramics, 39–40, 242–244, 284,
321; Maya versus Moche, 23, 39–40; Virú,
242–244
pottery. See ceramics
power: 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, 186
Preceramic Period, 159, 168
Presentation Theme. See Sacrifice Ceremony
priests, Maya, 315–316
priests, 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, 4
Proulx, Donald A., 38
provinces: in fall of Moche state, 271; Santa
Valley as, 277–279
Proyecto 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, 296
PSUM. See Proyecto Santa de la Universidad
de Montreal
public 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, 312
Pyramid of the Sun, 312
pyramids: 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, 130
Quebrada Santa María, 130
Quillapampa, 296–299, 301, 302, 303
Quilter, Jeffrey, 1–16, 33, 257, 307, 308, 314,
316, 319, 320
Quiriguá, 28
Rafael Larco Herrera Museum (Lima), 5, 6
rain. See El Niño
Ramírez, Susan E., 72, 104, 287
ramps, 175–176
Recuay, 38, 70
redware: at Huancaco, 212, 213, 214, 218, 221,
227; in Virú Valley, 224
Reindel, Markus, 34
relief sculpture, Maya, 19, 22, 24, 27–28
religion, Maya, 23, 315, 318–319
religion, 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 renovation
residential 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, 219
resistance, to domination, 183, 184
“Revolt of the Objects” (mural), 140, 143, 304
Rey de Assiria, 93
ritual practices: ceramics in, 283–284; in
Chicama Valley, 127, 130–131; as form of
control, 152–155; at Huaca de la Luna,

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, 321
rivers: 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, 183–184
rulers, 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, 128–129
Russell, Glenn S., 34, 37, 192
sacred architecture, at Huaca Cao Viejo,
121–122
sacred mountains, of Chicama Valley, 119, 128,
130
sacrifice. See human sacrifice
Sacrifice 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, 10
San Ildefonso, 99, 100, 102, 105
San José de Moro: burials at, 42, 106, 107;
as ceremonial center, 106, 108; El Brujo
Index    385
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, 199
Sanders, William, 312, 313
Santa Rosa de Quirihuac, 128, 190
Santa 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, 310
Schortman, Edward M., 74
scribes, Maya, 35–36
sculpture: Maya, 17–22, 24, 27–28; Moche,
17–22
Second Moche Period, at Huacas de Moche,
134, 140–148, 155–156, 157
secular power: at Huacas de Moche, 140, 142,
147, 156, 158; versus theocratic power, 314
secular warfare, 28–29, 321
self-sacrifice, by Maya rulers, 44
Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), 8
serpents, eared: geographical distribution of,
61–62; as symbol of state religion, 59–60, 61
serving wares, in burials, 189–190
settlement 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, 75
single-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., 248
social classes: formation of, 160; hierarchy
of, 170; interactions among, 170; urban,
134–135, 142–144, 163. See also elite
social formation, agriculture in, 159–160
social interactions, in Jequetepeque Valley,
106
social stratification, 170; in Jequetepeque
Valley, 88; in Moche Valley, 188
sociopolitical organization, Greek, 77–79
sociopolitical 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, 287
Spider Decapitator: geographical distribu-
tion of, 61, 63, 66, 67; as symbol of state
religion, 59–60
spiral-painted vase, 320
Squier, E. George, 4
staffs, at Huaca Santa Clara, 242–244
state(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, 58–69
Stela H (Copán), 25–27
Stela 10 (Yaxchilán), 315
step-fret or step-wave motif, 22
stirrup-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, 202
streets. See roads
stress, and warfare, 31
Strong, William Duncan, 6, 38, 42, 224, 225,
286
subterranean dwellings, 233–234
sugar cane, 116, 117
supernatural figures: at Huaca Cao Viejo,
123; Maya versus Moche, 20; in Sacrifice
Ceremony, 49
Swenson, Edward R., 93, 99–101, 286
symbols: Maya versus Moche, 17–27; of state
religion, 59–67

Talambo canal, 97, 105
tattoos, 240–241
Taube, Karl, 316, 321
taxation, 156, 182
technology, history of studies of, 9
teeth, DNA analysis of, 74–75, 76
Tello, Ricardo, 189
Temple I (Tikal), 42–44
temples: in Jequetepeque Valley, 101;
U-shaped, 121. See also specific temples
tenant farming, 196
Tenochtitlan, 248
Teotihuacan, 38, 312, 313, 315–316
Tepanec, 319
terraces, at Huaca Santa Clara, 232
territorial contractions, in Late Moche, 101
territorial 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, 38
territorial states: definition of, 227, 247–248;
Moche state as, 227, 249, 277
Texcoco, 248
textiles, at Huaca Santa Clara, 233, 235, 241,
243
Theater State, 313, 315, 316, 317
theocratic 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, 31
Tikal (Guatemala): burials at, 27; graffiti at,
22; Temple I at, 42–44; warfare at, 30
tinku, 29
Tiwanaku, 247–248
Tlacopan, 248
Tolón canal, 89
tombs: history of studies of, 7–8; Maya versus
Moche, 25–27; moving of objects in, 25. See
also burials; specific tombs
Index    387
Topic, John R., 28, 156
Topic, Theresa Lange, 28
Torero, Alfredo, 308
trade: Maya, 35; Moche, 35, 106
tribute collections, 29; in city-states, 248, 249–
250; in Moche Valley political economy,
196–197, 199; warfare for, 321
Trigger, Bruce G., 227, 247, 249
Tufinio, Moisés, 18, 152, 153
two-state model of Moche organization, 34,
148–149. See also Northern Moche region;
Southern Moche region
Tzacualli phase, 312
Ubbelohde-Doering, Heinrich, 12
Uceda Castillo, Santiago, xiii, 12, 18, 32,
40–41, 61, 132–158, 152, 284, 308, 309, 310
Uhle, Max, 4–5, 86
unity, political, 78–79
University of California, Los Angeles, 69n2
University of Montreal Project, 163
Upper Piura Archaeological Project, 292
Urban, Patricia A., 74
urban class, at Huacas de Moche, 134–135,
142–144, 163
urbanism: 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, 121
Uxmal, 22
valley states, evidence of, 34
Vásquez Sánchez, Segundo, 63, 110–131
Verano, John, 28–29, 34, 77, 153, 321
vestments, standardized ritual, 68–69. See also
clothing
Vichansao canal, 194, 196
Vicús ceramics. See ceramics, Vicús
Vicús-Tamarindo A and B, 11
Vilela Puelles, Juan V., 18
Virú ceramics. See ceramics, Virú
Virú (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, 220
Virú-Moche style ceramics, 281
vultures, 23
war maces, 235, 236, 242
war motifs, Maya, 22, 27–31, 321
war 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, 27–31
warfare, 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, 247–248
Warner, John, 93
Warrior 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, 20
water ownership, 160
weapon 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, 48–49
wooden objects, at Huaca Santa Clara,
242–244
workshops: 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, 312
Xochicalco, 321
Yaxchilán (Mexico), 27–28, 315, 321
Yunga, 183
Zaña Valley, 206, 311
zoning, urban, 165