4
Communities in Motion
Peripatetic Households in the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley, Peru
Guy S. Duke
Community is not an unchanging essence, but from time to time and place to place it is a different phenomenon.
William H. Isbell (2000, 253)
Often, the term community is employed as just another word for village or site, rooting it in place as an essentially self-contained, bounded entity (e.g., Arensberg 1955; Hollingshead 1948; Kolb and Snead 1997; Murdock 1949; Redfield 1963 [1955]; Wolf 1957). Through this perspective, “ ‘Community’ is [often] assumed to be real and natural. It is internally homogeneous, externally bounded, and characterized by a collective consciousness shared by all affiliates” (Isbell 2000, 243). Central to this perspective is George Murdock’s (1949) concept of “co-residence,” in which a household is ostensibly defined as people who live together in the same structure—and communities are more or less agglomerations of individual households (Isbell 2000; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). This viewpoint can often be advantageous to archaeologists who are inextricably tied to material remains, but it is flawed as a conceptualization of communities that fails to recognize them as dynamic social units.
Counter to this interpretation of “natural communities” is “ ‘community’ as process, an imagined community constructed in competing discourses, dynamic, contingent, and contradictory” (Isbell 2000, 245). William H. Isbell’s (2000, 249) idea of “imagined communities” (sensu Anderson 1991), in its assumed volatility and dynamism of group membership, embraces the concept that communities are plural and membership in them is impermanent and flexible, a perspective that allows us to read multiple forms of community participation dependent upon context (see also Hegmon 2002; Mac Sweeney 2011; Owoc 2005; Pauketat 2000; Rowe 2014; Varien 1999; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). This dynamism does not exclude placedness in its conception; rather, it emphasizes the social malleability of communities while acknowledging the interactions in time and space through which communities are constructed. Within this conception of communities, households, too, are untethered from specific structures and places and are seen as more fluid in both their location and their membership. Definitions of both community and household thus become predicated on interaction and “doings,” invoking Anthony Giddens’s (1984) “copresence” rather than place and architecture (see also Anderson 1991; Canuto and Yaeger 2000; Cohen 1985; Fowles 2013; Ingold 2000; Varien and Potter 2008; Varien and Wilshusen 2002).
There is a growing body of evidence that during the Late Moche Period in the northern coastal valleys of Peru, rural populations were highly mobile and were not necessarily inhabitants of towns and villages as part of an urban periphery. Evidence of peripatetic movement of people for purposes of work parties, ritual observances, agricultural production, and trade blurs the lines between the physical and social spaces these activities occupied (Dillehay 2001; Gumerman 2010; Swenson 2018; Swenson and Chiguala 2018). In fact, the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley was characterized by multiple interconnected residential patterns. The large urban centers appear to have had populations of elite religious and political specialists as well as craft-producing specialists (Bawden 1982, 2001; Chapdelaine 2001, 2009; Johnson 2010; Pozorski and Pozorski 2003; Shimada 2001; van Gijseghem 2001). These groups were also resident in small and intermediate-size settlements in the countryside, though in smaller populations. These two groups of urban and rural elites and specialists were linked directly to one another through ideological paraphernalia and associated social obligations (Castillo Butters 2001; Dillehay 2001; Gumerman 2010; Johnson 2008, 2011; Swenson 2007, 2008; Swenson and Chiguala 2018).
Entangled within this network of large and small elite centers of religious and political observation were the highly mobile communities of agriculturalists and fishers who were not specifically tied to any one settlement, though possibly to specific fields, canals, or both at specific times during the agricultural cycle (see Castillo Butters 2010). These mobile agriculturalists/fishers were connected to the small and large centers through the exchange of materials and political/religious observations but were not necessarily beholden to any one settlement or group of settlements. Previous research has established the relative autonomy of smaller hinterland centers in the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley1 (Dillehay 2001; Johnson 2008, 2011; Swenson 2006).
It is important to avoid the assumption that “rural life” is equal to “lower-class laborers.” Those in leadership positions may also have been rural and mobile, with only a very select few living in permanent, urban settings. In essence, the concept of spatially bounded communities is inappropriate when discussing the rural populations in the Late Moche Jequetepeque. Instead, I argue that the Late Moche rural household was a mobile social unit that was not fixed to any particular architectural feature or settlement site, instead following economic, ritual, and eminently social rounds throughout the region in which the households resided.
The use of multiple households is common in the Andes, as documented ethnographically, ethnohistorically, and archaeologically (e.g., Contreras 2010; Hirsch 2018; Jurado 2013; Murra 1956; Saignes 1995; van Buren 1996; Wernke 2007). Most studies have focused on the highlands, however, and on John V. Murra’s (1956) concept of the vertical archipelago, in which residents of steep highland valleys make use of the variety in altitudinal ecological zones to produce or collect the different products that can grow in each zone. This would entail repeatedly traversing the steep hillsides, usually with residences in at least two of them for occupation during harvesting or planting periods. This model works well for the most part in these valleys but is less easily applied to the coastal lowlands of the Moche. However, as Izumi Shimada (1982) has noted, the coast also has specific ecological zones where specific resources are located and exploited. This raises the possibility of similar patterns of mobility and temporary residences occurring in coastal areas as well.
With this said, it should be remembered that the movement of people is invariably rooted in social contexts. Gregson Schachner (2012, 5) argues that “population movement does not simply result in the transfer of people from one place to another; rather, it is a social context in which people can transform social organization and networks.” Schachner (2012, 9–11) invokes the idea of “population circulation,” as it is used in geography (see Chapman and Prothero 1985), and details four propositions on mobility: “(1) circulation varies depending on the particular individuals studied, as well as the destination of their moves . . . (2) circulation is often driven by three factors: ecological variability and hazards; ‘customary life,’ including marriage, warfare, and exchange; and ‘the decisions of the elderly, the prestigious, and the socially and economically important’ (i.e., social hierarchy) . . . (3) in every society there is a spatial separation of obligations, activities, and goods; and . . . (4) frequent population circulation promotes fluidity in residence, social group membership, and leadership” (Schachner 2012, 10–11).
These four propositions are part of the lens through which I view mobility in the Late Moche Jequetepeque. Late Moche rural mobility may have been rooted in conceptions of social organization that contrasted with those dwelling in urban centers, a conception manifested in the construction of temporary architecture as well as the presence and absence of artifactual assemblages associated with rural life (i.e., agricultural and maritime labor). I argue that residence was highly fluid and that communities were not bounded spatially. These peripatetic households—that is, groups of co-residing individuals whose places of habitation were multiple in location, requiring cyclical movement between residences—were likely the most common form of social organization among rural inhabitants of the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley.
The idea of an economic round in archaeology and anthropology has traditionally been tied to mobile, nonsedentary or semisedentary gathering, hunting, and fishing groups, with any ritual significance to such a round ascribed to the elevated symbolic importance of the subsistence system within which it is embedded (sensu Steward 1938). While I do not agree that a ritual round is necessarily subservient to and dependent upon an economic round—the two are in fact inextricably intertwined—there is no reason to believe that similar rounds were not part of the daily, monthly, and yearly lives of people living in what are considered to be more sedentary societies.
People are always in motion. Whether it is to or from a place of spiritual observance, in pursuit of wild game, from the field house to the field, or from the fishing nets to the market, movement from place to place is integral to the operation of society (Ingold 2000). In actuality, movement and interaction become the social context itself. Trade, religion, subsistence, and politics are all dependent upon them. Even in so-called sedentary societies marked by permanent residences and monumental architecture, people still embark on religious pilgrimages, long-distance trade expeditions, or diplomatic missions. The majority of residents in the Late Moche Jequetepeque, I argue, were constantly moving as members of mobile household groups, likely on a set round of inextricably linked political, religious, and economic significance.
Households as social constructs, as opposed to simply physical structures (sensu Bourdieu 1979, 133–153; Lévi-Strauss 1982), have been extensively explored by archaeologists for decades (e.g., Coupland et al. 2009; Cutting 2003; Hodder 1994; Moore 2012; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Robin 2002, 2003; Stanish 1989; Wilk and Rathje 1982). Moche households have become an increasingly prominent avenue of inquiry into Moche societies ever since Garth Bawden (1982) noted the relative lacunae in such research in the early 1980s. Since then, analyses of the domestic sectors at sites such as Galindo (Bawden 1982, 2001), Huacas de Moche (Chapdelaine 2001, 2009; Pozorski and Pozorski 2003; van Gijseghem 2001), Pampa Grande (Johnson 2010; Shimada 1994, 2001), and Huaca Colorada (Gataveckas 2011; Lynch 2013; Swenson and Chiguala 2018; Swenson et al. 2011, 2012, 2013), among others, have greatly advanced our understanding of Moche domestic life. However, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Gataveckas 2011; Gumerman and Briceño 2003; Johnson 2008, 2011; Swenson and Chiguala 2018), Moche households have been understood primarily through studies of urban settings, associating domestic life directly with fixed, relatively permanent architectural structures (Bawden 1982; Chapdelaine 2001; Johnson 2010; Pozorski and Pozorski 2003; van Gijseghem 2001).
However, for most of history, urban dwellers have been only a small portion of the population, and this was likely also true in the case of the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley. As Tom D. Dillehay (2001, 259) asserts, “The archaeological history needs to be tempered by more information excavated from communities in the countryside . . . not just from urban elite architecture and commodities.” Dillehay’s assertion emphasizes that rural regions operated somewhat autonomously within complex economically and politically entangled systems rather than simply as sources of economic support for, and under the direct or indirect control of, elite urban leaders (contra Keatinge 1975). In fact, urban and rural Moche households have recently been shown to differ in their social organization and corporate group composition (see Gataveckas 2011; Gumerman and Briceño 2003; Johnson 2010, 2011; Shimada 2001). The literature on the daily practices of rural populations in the archaeological past, in the Andes and beyond, has grown significantly (see Dillehay 2001; Johnson 2008, 2011; Schwartz and Falconer 1994; Swenson 2004, 2008; Vining 2011). Following these investigations, rural Moche households appear to have been far more flexible and variable than previously acknowledged. This variation and flexibility necessarily calls into question some of our basic assumptions of so-called sedentary societies (Dillehay 2001; Ingold 2000; Isbell 1995, 1996, 2000; Kent 1992; Kent and Vierich 1989; Schachner 2012; Varien 1999).
During the Late Moche Period in the northern coastal valleys of Peru (particularly the Jequetepeque and Zaña), rural populations may have been highly mobile and were not necessarily inhabitants of permanent towns and villages as part of an urban periphery (Dillehay 2001; Gumerman 2010; Swenson and Chiguala 2018). This mobility may have been rooted in conceptions of social organization that contrasted with those dwelling in urban centers. Instead, rural inhabitants likely moved across the landscape as part of cyclical economic and ritual rounds rooted in timed events such as planting/harvest periods, canal maintenance schedules, and the presentation of tribute to local political and religious elites. This cyclical round would have required a certain amount of social flexibility in regard to household and family. It is possible that the rural Moche household was a mobile social unit not fixed to any particular architectural feature or settlement site, instead consisting of a fluid and flexible group of individuals following an economic, ritual, and eminently social round throughout the region in which they resided.
In essence, a large proportion of the population, regardless of socioeconomic position, was highly mobile as part of a politicoeconomic-ritual round. This dynamic interaction is evidenced through mobility across the landscape, a landscape in which permanent architecture does not necessarily equal permanent residence. This is not to say that previously posited, architecturally embedded household analyses from urban regions are incorrect but that they instead account only for one subset of the Moche population—urban dwellers. However, a significant percentage of the Moche lived in the countryside as farmers and fishers and was only occasionally drawn to urban locales. This model of households highlights the contingent and contextual nature of Moche communities.
Rural Mobility in the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley
Evidence of the rapid rise of multiple ceremonial centers in the Jequetepeque Valley (figure 4.1) suggests that the Late Moche Period was one of instability in which previously unified territories fragmented into autonomous and often competing polities (Castillo Butters 2010; Dillehay 2001; Dillehay et al. 2009; Donnan 2011; Rosas Rintel 2007; Swenson 2004, 2007, 2008). This decentralization and internecine conflict has been posited as the result of internal disputes, external invasions, environmental stress, or a combination of these factors (Castillo Butters 2000; Castillo Butters et al. 2008; Rosas Rintel 2010; Swenson 2006, 2007).
Figure 4.1. Map of lower Jequetepeque Valley and sites discussed in this chapter
A general shift toward the north side of the Jequetepeque during the Late Moche Period was countered by the rise in prominence of Huaca Colorada on the south side (Donnan 2011; Swenson 2012; Swenson et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). In addition, contact with highland polities intensified, as demonstrated at Huaca Colorada as well as at San José de Moro and Cerro Chepén on the north side of the valley (Castillo Butters 2000; Castillo Butters et al. 2008; Rosas Rintel 2007, 2010; Swenson and Warner 2012; Swenson et al. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015). The interrelationships between shifts in religious practices and political interactions with foreign groups are central to the understanding of local concepts of identity. An examination of the fluidity of rural household and community identities provides an alternative perspective to the focus on ceremonial centers that predominates in studies of the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley (Castillo Butters 2008; Cutright 2010; Rosas Rintel 2007; Swenson 2011, 2012).
To date, rural Moche populations have not been extensively studied, limiting our understanding of Moche social diversity and political organization. In fact, Moche social distinction and political organization are mostly known through studies of urbanization, monumental architecture, burials, and feasting economies (Arsenault 1992; Castillo Butters et al. 2008; Gumerman 1997, 2010; Swenson 2006; White et al. 2009). Little attention has been paid to the everyday practices of identity formation and maintenance for the majority of the population—rural farmers/fishers and rural elites. If people were frequently shifting from location to location as parts of work parties or for ritual observances (which are not mutually exclusive; see Gumerman 2010), then the areas where they performed their domestic tasks were likely to be inextricable from the work and ritual contexts in which they were traveling and their memberships in these groups was likely as fluid as their movements between locations. The separation of domestic and ritual is often problematic (Bourdieu 1979, 133–153; Hendon 2003; Hodder 1994; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Robin 2002). This is particularly true for rural Moche settlements (see Spence Morrow, this volume; Swenson and Warner 2012).
Despite the fact that many, if not most, of the inhabitants of the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley were likely farmers and fishers, most sites so far investigated had no evidence of farming or fishing tools. Their mobility and regular changes in physical residence likely led them to leave their tools closer to where they used them. One example is the site of Portachuelo de Charcape, located on the west side of a pass across the Santa Catalina Hills. Ilana Johnson (2011, 57) highlights the adobe brick structures located close to the two huacas as likely loci for elite residences, though she notes that the size of the site itself is indicative that it was unlikely that full-time specialists resided at the site. The lack of farming implements recovered during excavations is perplexing, as Moche subsistence was based on agricultural and maritime products, both of which were present in abundance at the site (Johnson 2008, 265–266). Johnson posits three possible scenarios that could explain the lack of agricultural tools at the site: (1) resident agriculturalists removed their tools when they abandoned the site, (2) the tools are located in an as yet unexcavated part of the site, and (3) residents of the site were exclusively maritime fishers, exchanging their products with agriculturalists not resident at the site. As Johnson (2008, 265) explicitly notes, these scenarios are not the only possibilities. With this in mind, I would add a fourth possibility: that agriculturalists and possibly fishers as well had only an ephemeral presence at the site, keeping their tools in locations closer to fields/shore to be retrieved when they were needed.
There is growing consensus that rural Moche communities in the Jequetepeque were semiautonomous, linked in part by ideology and networks of alliances (Castillo Butters 2001; Dillehay 2001; Johnson 2008, 2011; Swenson 2007). This new understanding of Moche social organization resonates with mobility as an integral part of rural life. Johnson (2011, 55) notes that “new emphasis on community participation in burial rituals at the site of San José de Moro . . . may have included groups from other villages in the Jequetepeque Valley.” This supports the likelihood of a ritual/economic round that brought farmers, fishers, and villagers to and from a variety of sites, including ritual/administrative centers such as Portachuelo de Charcape and Wasi Huachuma as well as large ceremonial sites like Huaca Colorada and San José de Moro. Broad settlement data support this hypothesis (see Dillehay 2001; Dillehay et al. 2009; Swenson 2004). Dillehay (2001, 267; Dillehay et al. 2009) and his team recorded a significant number of small and intermediate-size Late Moche settlements as well as “many small settlements representing part-time or full-time farmsteads.” At the more substantial sites, Dillehay noted the possibility of both permanent residence and seasonal/temporary residence likely associated with farming and fishing. Further, Dillehay (2001, 270) mentions the periodic abandonment and reuse of sites of all sizes but particularly in the countryside, which “presumably had something to do with new kinds of interactions taking place among local social groups.”
The small, rural sites of ritual and administrative function that proliferated in the Late Moche Period northern valleys were arguably part of a network of political, economic, and religious nodes of interaction for the residents of the region (Dillehay 2001; Dillehay et al. 2009; Gumerman 2010; Johnson 2008; Swenson 2004, 2008; Swenson and Chiguala 2018). Dillehay (2001, 272–273) theorizes that “there may even have been separate spheres of social and economic interaction in late Moche times, characterized by coexisting elite and nonelite economic networks.” While he is clear that these ideas are preliminary and somewhat speculative, he asserts that Moche commoners in the countryside were likely relatively autonomous, perhaps even during times with more centralized political structures (Dillehay 2001, 274). While Dillehay does not explicitly explore mobility, the evidence he presents and the theories he posits are interwoven with this premise as a central element. The assertions of temporary residences, varied networks of interaction, and high levels of autonomy among farmers, fishers, and villagers all hint toward a population in motion, moving from sites of economic, political, and religious importance whenever needed. A network such as this would require a mobile population to be viable, such as that described by George J. Gumerman (2010; see also Dietler and Herbich 2001) in regard to peripatetic laborers and festive participation in the Moche world.
Gumerman (2010) identifies Moche mobility through the lens of feasts, and certainly feasting was important. Attendance at life-cycle feasts (e.g., births, deaths, marriages) and work party feasts, as discussed by Gumerman, plus attendance at other social and political obligations involving feasting (see Swenson 2008), was in all likelihood an integral element for mobility. However, there was more to life than feasting, despite its importance to Moche life. Instead, I argue that Late Moche mobility in the lower Jequetepeque Valley was rooted in complex, intertwining, and inseparable elements connected to social life, economic seasonality, and ritual/political expediency. Because of this, household memberships in communities were necessarily fluid.
The Lower Jequetepeque: Two Late Moche Cases
Huaca Colorada and Wasi Huachuma (Je-64) are two very different archaeological sites in the lower Jequetepeque Valley (see figure 4.1). Huaca Colorada is a large ceremonial center on the south side of the valley, with two lower, flanking “domestic” sectors (Swenson 2018; Swenson and Chiguala 2018; Swenson and Warner 2012; Swenson et al. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015). Wasi Huachuma, in contrast, is a small site on the north side of the valley featuring a high lookout, evidence of potential elite residence, and a small ramped platform mound (Dillehay et al. 2009, 86–89; Duke 2017, 100–179; Swenson 2004, 609–617). While it is likely that the two sites were not used by the same people—and may have been part of two entirely different polities on different sides of the valley (Swenson 2007, 2008)—evidence for similar patterns of peripatetic movement appears at both.
At these two sites, structures with thick walls with at least two courses of adobe bricks, showing evidence of maintenance, renovation, or both, are thought to have been permanent and indicative of regular occupation. These structures may have seen occasional re-flooring events but do not show evidence of abandonment and reconstruction. In addition, ceremonial ramped/terraced structures with evidence of consistent upkeep were also classified as permanently occupied/used.
In contrast, temporary structures were generally smaller and, if they had walls, were a single course of adobe or stone. Constructed floors of tapia were frequently present but were rougher, less formalized, and not necessarily conscribed by walls on all sides. They show evidence of onetime use followed by abandonment and reconstruction of new, similar structures nearby. This is evidenced by the palimpsest of floors (not necessarily placed directly atop previous floors) with thin layers of sand between them, indicating a lack of upkeep after abandonment (see Swenson et al. 2012, 168–190).
The features and artifacts associated with these structures are also important in showing temporary or long-term use (hearths are an excellent example of this). The types of materials in these contexts can tell us what sorts of activities took place in these structures and potentially for how long. On their own, the artifacts are insufficient, but together with their overall contexts they were certainly useful to help understand what items people were bringing and leaving behind at specific locations.
Huaca Colorada
Huaca Colorada is a ceremonial site situated 13 km from the Pacific Coast, in the sand dune–covered coastal lowlands of the southern Jequetepeque Valley. It is the only known large ritual center on the south side of the Jequetepeque River dating to the Late Moche Period (Dillehay et al. 2009; Swenson 2004, 2012). Three sectors delimit the site: Sector B at the summit of the huaca, Sector A below B to the north, and Sector C below B to the south (figure 4.2). Sector B has been identified as the monumental core based on the architecture and presence of sacrificial burials as well as a large midden thought to be the remains of feasting events (Swenson et al. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Sectors A and C have been theorized as residential or domestic productive zones where people made expedient camps and produced crafts for the events at the summit. Distinct rooms with floors and storage chambers on the south side of Sector B may indicate permanent elite residence, while the expedient camps in the other sectors suggest that nonelites occupied these areas ephemerally but repeatedly. The expedient camps of Sector C are focused on below.
Figure 4.2. Topographic map of Huaca Colorada with three primary sectors. Courtesy, Edward Swenson
Sector C is approximately 100 m2 and is 10 m below and to the south of Sector B, on the lower prominence of a stationary sand dune on which the site is located. (Swenson et al. 2011, 171–172). Excavations here have revealed a number of expediently made structures featuring low adobe walls and rough floors with inset depressions for large pots (Swenson et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). The structures are generally characterized by two low, perpendicular adobe walls and a floor of mixed clay and sand (tapia) that was laid down wet in the corners, expanding out to create a living surface that terminated roughly in a square at the end points of the walls (figure 4.3). These structures were quickly assembled and have been found scattered throughout the central portion of Sector C at Huaca Colorada, occasionally overlapping one another. It is likely that these were temporary structures, constructed by household groups during cyclical attendance at the site for political and religious events conducted in the upper ceremonial core in Sector B (Gataveckas 2011; Swenson 2018; Swenson and Chiguala 2018; Swenson and Warner 2012; Swenson et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). Edward R. Swenson and Jorge Y. Chiguala (2018) have attributed these types of informal habitations to fluid, daily co-residential practices performed by transitory residential groups.
Figure 4.3. Expedient tapia floor and adobe walls in Sector C at Huaca Colorada. Courtesy, Edward Swenson
These structures were venues of primarily quotidian activities as evidenced by paleobotanical (table 4.1) and zooarchaeological (table 4.2) samples (Vásquez Sánchez and Rosales Tham 2011, 2012, 2013) and ceramic data (table 4.3) (Swenson and Warner 2012; Swenson et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). Notably, the contexts excavated within these structures lack many of the exotic and imported luxury goods, such as Spondylus shell, deer, peanuts, fruit (e.g., guava, pacay, lucuma), and Cajamarca-style ceramics (Swenson and Warner 2012), found in the Sector B ceremonial core. Instead, there is a mix of utilitarian and high-status materials but with a definite lean toward local (e.g., beans, maize, chili peppers, local ceramics) rather than imported (e.g., highland ceramics, Spondylus) and domestic (e.g., bottle gourds, utilitarian ceramics) rather than ceremonial (e.g., decorated ceramics, peanuts).
Either local elites occupied the expedient structures of Sector C or nonelites gained access to fineware ceramics for use there. Local Moche fineline wares were found in relative abundance (40 sherds, 37.4% of the total ceramics recovered) and this, combined with the lack of highland Cajamarca wares (1 sherd, 0.9% of the total ceramics recovered), emphasizes this local focus and the use of specialized ceramics generally reserved for special events. These structures present other assemblage patterns that are consistent with temporary use. The presence of coca and chili peppers—two plants known for both their ritual significance and importance in daily activities (Cutright 2011, 87; Gumerman 2002)—as well as maize and llama, is consistent with a pattern that makes sense for temporary domestic structures at an important ceremonial site. Rural farmers/fishers either were not part of the attendees/temporary residents at the site or, more likely, they simply did not bring their work tools to the party, as indicated by the lack of agricultural and fishing implements in Sector C at Huaca Colorada.
While there was a substantial amount of permanent architecture, particularly in the ceremonial core at the top of the site in Sector B as well as on the east and south edges of Sector C (Swenson 2012; Swenson and Warner 2012; Swenson et al. 2011, 2012, 2013), the evidence for permanent residence in relation to this architecture is somewhat uncertain. Sector A was a possible location for longer-term or permanent habitation at Huaca Colorada, which is evidenced by rectilinear structures with rooms and benches as well as series of floors indicating reconstruction and possible reoccupation or potentially permanent occupation and continual maintenance (Swenson et al. 2012, 2013). The ambiguity here arises with the presence of many large face-neck vessels theorized to be used for chicha production and grain storage. This could indicate domestic occupation and production or simply that these were storage facilities for occasional feasts. What Swenson and Chiguala (2018) assert is that the variety of household forms found at this one site, ranging from permanent residences to temporary, expedient structures, is clear evidence of a diversity in the domestic realm of the Moche that has not before been properly acknowledged.
Table 4.1. Presence/absence of paleobotanical materials from Sectors C* and B† at Huaca Colorada
| Species/Genus (common name) | Sector C Sample* | Sector B† |
|---|---|---|
Acacia sp. (acacia) | Y | |
Ahnfeltia durvillaei (seaweed) | Y | |
Arachis hypogaea (peanut) | Y | |
Bunchosia armeniaca (peanut butter fruit) | Y | |
Capparis angulata (sapote) | Y | |
Capparis ovalifolia | Y | |
Capsicum sp. (pepper) | Y | Y |
Citrus aurantium (bitter orange) | Y | |
Cucurbita moschata (squash/pumpkin) | Y | |
Erytrhroxilum coca (coca) | Y | Y |
Gigartina chamissoi (seaweed) | Y | |
Gossypium barbadense (cotton) | Y | Y |
Gynerium sagittatum (caña brava) | Y | |
Inga feuillei (pacay) | Y | |
Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato) | Y | |
Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd) | Y | Y |
Paspalum sp. (grass) | Y | Y |
Persea americana (avocado) | Y | |
Phaseolus lunatus (lima bean) | Y | |
Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) | Y | Y |
Phragmites australis (reed) | Y | Y |
Potamogeton sp. (pond weed) | Y | |
Pouteria lucuma (lúcuma) | Y | |
Prionitis sp. (seaweed) | Y | |
Prosopis pallida (algorroba) | Y | Y |
Psidium guajava (guava) | Y | |
Scirpus sp. (aquatic grass) | Y | |
Solanum sp. (nightshades) | Y | |
Thevetia peruviana (yellow oleander) | Y | |
Tillandsia sp. (bromeliad) | Y | |
Trifolium sp. (clover) | Y | |
Ulva sp. (sea lettuce) | Y | |
Zea mays (maize) | Y | Y |
* Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from units 6, 7, 11 (2010) and 4, 5, 7 (2011).
† Includes all units excavated in and around the ceremonial center of the site.
Table 4.2. Zooarchaeological remains from Sector C* at Huaca Colorada
| Vertebrates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mammals | NISP | % of Mammals | % of Vertebrates | % of Total |
Canis familiaris (dog) | 9 | 5.0 | 3.6 | 0.3 |
Cavia porcellus (Guinea pig) | 20 | 11.0 | 7.9 | 0.7 |
Lama sp. (llama/guanaco) | 109 | 59.9 | 43.3 | 3.8 |
Mammals (unidentified mammal) | 17 | 9.3 | 6.7 | 0.6 |
Muridae (rodent) | 24 | 13.2 | 9.5 | 0.9 |
Otaria sp. (eared seal) | 3 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.1 |
Total | 182 | 100.0 | 72.2 | 6.4 |
| Fish | % of Fish | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | |
Anisotremus scapularis (Peruvian grunt) | 2 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
Caulolatilus sp. (percoid fish [e.g., whitefish]) | 1 | 2.1 | 0.4 | > 0.1 |
Cynoscion sp. (sea trout) | 4 | 8.3 | 1.6 | 0.1 |
Fish (unidentified fish) | 8 | 16.7 | 3.2 | 0.3 |
Galeichthys peruvianus (sea catfish) | 1 | 2.1 | 0.4 | > 0.1 |
Mugil cephalus (flathead mullet) | 27 | 56.3 | 10.7 | 1.0 |
Myliobatis sp. (eagle ray) | 1 | 2.1 | 0.4 | > 0.1 |
Paralonchurus peruanus (Peruvian banded croaker) | 2 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
Sardinops sagax (South American pilchard) | 1 | 2.1 | 0.4 | > 0.1 |
Stellifer minor (lined drum) | 1 | 2.1 | 0.4 | > 0.1 |
Total | 48 | 100.0 | 19.0 | 1.7 |
| Birds | % of Birds | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | |
Bird (unidentified bird) | 7 | 43.8 | 2.8 | 0.2 |
Larus sp. (gull) | 2 | 12.5 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
Phalacrocorax bougainvillii (Guanay cormorant) | 5 | 31.3 | 2.0 | 0.2 |
Zenaida asiatica (white-winged dove) | 2 | 12.5 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
Total | 16 | 100.0 | 6.4 | 0.6 |
| Reptiles | % of Reptiles | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | |
Reptile (unidentified reptile) | 1 | 16.7 | 0.4 | > 0.1 |
Tropidurus sp. (ground lizard) | 5 | 83.3 | 2.0 | 0.2 |
Total | 6 | 100.0 | 2.4 | 0.2 |
TOTAL VERTEBRATES | 252 | |||
| Invertebrates | ||||
| Mollusks | NISP | % of Mollusks | % of Invertebrates | % of Total |
Acanthopleura echinata (chiton) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Argopecten purpuratus (Peruvian/calico scallop) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Cancellaria urceolata (sea snail; nutmeg snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Cantharus elegans (whelk) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Cerithium stercusmuscarum (sea snail) | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Choromytilus chorus (giant mussel) | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Donax obesulus (surf clam) | 1,044 | 41.2 | 40.4 | 36.8 |
Enoplochiton niger (chiton) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Fissurella crassa (thick keyhole limpet; sea snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Fissurella maxima (giant keyhole limpet) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Helisoma sp. (freshwater snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Helisoma trivolvis (“ramshorn” land snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Mesodesma donacium (saltwater clam) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Mitra orientalis (miter sea snail) | 10 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Nassarius dentifer (mud snail; dog whelk; sea snail) | 29 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
Oliva peruviana (Peruvian olive/sea snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Olivella columellaris (dwarf olives/sea snail) | 12 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
Perumytilus purpuratus (common marine mussel) | 30 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Polinices uber (moon sea snail) | 675 | 26.7 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
Prisogaster niger (turban sea snail) | 185 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 6.5 |
Pupoides sp. (land snail) | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Scutalus chiletensis (land snail) | 14 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Semimytilus algosus (intertidal mussel) | 45 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.6 |
Sinum cymba (concave moon ear snail) | 47 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.7 |
Solenosteira fusiformis (fusiform goblet) | 4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
Spisula adamsii (surf clam) | 3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Tegula atra (sea snail) | 21 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
Tegula euryomphalus (sea snail) | 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Thais chocolata (locate/rock snail/sea snail) | 110 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.9 |
Thais delessertiana (sea snail/rock snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
continued on next page | ||||
| Invertebrates | ||||
| Mollusks | NISP | % of Mollusks | % of Invertebrates | % of Total |
Thais haemastoma (red-mouthed rock shell) | 193 | 7.6 | 7.5 | 6.8 |
Trachycardium procerum (cockle) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Trivia radians (false cowry/small sea snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Turbo fluctuosus (wavy turban/sea snail) | 1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 | > 0.1 |
Xanthochorus buxea (sea snail/rock snail) | 86 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.0 |
Total | 2,531 | 100.0 | 98.0 | 89.3 |
| Arthropods | % of Arthropods | % of Invertebrates | % of Total | |
Platyxanthus orbignyi (crab) | 52 | 100.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
Total | 52 | 100.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
TOTAL INVERTEBRATES | 2,583 | |||
TOTAL ALL | 2,835 | |||
* Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from units 6, 7, 11 (2010) and 4, 5, 7 (2011), excluding burials.
Wasi Huachuma
Wasi Huachuma was a multifunctional site featuring prominent ceremonial architecture, high, flat platforms overlooking the valley, residential architecture, and possible temporary campsites. The site is located on the lower northeast slope of the Santa Catalina Hills, 12 km south of San José de Moro, 10 km northeast of Pacatnamú, and 12 km west of Cerro Chepén—three major centers of political power during the Moche Period in the Jequetepeque Valley (Cusicanqui Marsano 2010; Donnan and Cock 1997; Rosas Rintel 2010) (see figure 4.1).
Table 4.3. Ceramics from Sector C* at Huaca Colorada
| Counts | % of Grade | % of Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarian/low grade | ||||
Olla rims | 8 | 13.8 | 7.5 | |
Cántaro rims | 37 | 63.8 | 34.6 | |
Ralladores | 1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | |
Tinaja rims | 6 | 10.3 | 5.6 | |
Other | 6 | 10.3 | 5.6 | |
Total | 58 | 54.2 | ||
| Mid-grade/decorated | ||||
Face-neck cántaros | 4 | 50.0 | 3.7 | |
Figurines/appliqué pieces | 3 | 37.5 | 2.8 | |
Other | 1 | 12.5 | 0.9 | |
Total | 8 | 7.4 | ||
| High-status serving wares | ||||
Cajamarca (highland) | 1 | 2.4 | 0.9 | |
Local high-status Moche | 40 | 97.6 | 37.4 | |
Total | 41 | 38.3 | ||
TOTAL ALL | 107 | |||
* Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from units 6, 7, 11 (2010) and 4, 5, 7 (2011), excluding burials.
The site consists of seven distinct sectors delineated by three dry arroyos running northeast from the top of the hills to the irrigated plain below (Dillehay et al. 2009, 86–89; Duke 2017, 100–179; Swenson 2004, 609–617) (figure 4.4). Sector B, the ceremonial core of the site, occupies the central portion of the lower slope of the hill and features a three-tiered, ramped platform mound (Structure B). Sector A is situated to the east of Sector B and encompasses two low hills and an intervening low pass. This zone is located between Arroyo 1 and Arroyo 3 and features a two-tiered terrace structure built within the pass. Sector D is located on the hill 47 m above Sector B and is notable for its two flat platforms at the summit. These flat platforms overlook the site and the farmlands of the valley below. Sector C is located to the west of Sector B and is bordered on the west by Arroyo 2. It occupies a low ridge and features a number of stone alignments and disinterred burials and in previous surveys had been identified as the primary residential sector (Dillehay et al. 2009, 86–89; Swenson 2004, 609–617). Sector E is situated to the north of Sector C and designates the hill on the north tip of the ridge. This sector features a series of terraces on the hill slope and an L-shaped platform at the bottom of the northwest slope. Sector F is located on the west side of Arroyo 2 and features a number of circular stone alignments. Sector G lies on the flat area northeast of the base of the Sector E hill and, based on the surface ceramics collected, was a likely residential/temporary camp area. The evidence for both permanent and temporary residence at Wasi Huachuma is notable in its variability. Sections C and E, as well as Sector G, will be focused on below as the primary residential zones at the site.
Figure 4.4. Topographic map of Wasi Huachuma with inset of sectors discussed in this chapter.
Sectors C and E
The architecture and excavated materials from Sectors C and E show evidence of permanent habitation and food processing, including burned floors, hearths, food-processing implements—such as grinding stones, cutters and scrapers, and ceramic graters (ralladores)2—as well as the remains of food items themselves (Duke 2017, 130–161). The preponderance of plain ceramic body sherds (table 4.4), many of which showed signs of burning, in combination with the frequency of hearth contexts associated with floors is highly indicative of food production. The tapia floors placed along walls were made up of a single course of construction materials (stone rather than adobe in this case) (figure 4.5). Ultimately, Wasi Huachuma was likely a locale featuring both temporary and permanent residence, as shown by the architectural and artifactual evidence from Sectors C and E.
Figure 4.5. Parallel stone walls with floor in Sector C at Wasi Huachuma
The structures in Sectors C and E at Wasi Huachuma may have been the locales of repeated reoccupation by the same groups, possibly local elites or food production specialists. The paleobotanical (table 4.5), zooarchaeological (Vásquez Sánchez and Rosales Tham 2014) (table 4.6), and ceramic (table 4.4) assemblages exhibit a mix of utilitarian and high-status materials but with an emphasis on local over imported materials (i.e., no highland ceramics), similar to Sector C at Huaca Colorada. As well, although Wasi Huachuma is close to the ocean as the dove flies, consideration must be given to the large range of hills between the site and the sea. Thus Wasi Huachuma is decidedly oriented to the north and east, toward the wide agricultural plain between the Santa Catalina Hills and the foothills of the Andes. This might, at least in part, explain the low emphasis on marine products in the archaeological assemblage. Excavations did not recover tools specifically associated with agriculture or fishing. The implications appear to be that temporary or semipermanent structures were erected for use during important events located at Wasi Huachuma. The materials recovered were clearly indicative of small-scale food production, making this the possible site for semipermanent or more temporary habitation.
Sector G
In addition to Sectors C and E, Wasi Huachuma’s Sector G was also a temporary residence area (figure 4.6). While the sample is currently small and comes solely from the surface, the ceramic evidence indicates primary use of utilitarian cooking vessels (table 4.4). The location of Sector G on the north perimeter of the site, nearer to the irrigated fields and furthest from the ceremonial core (Structure B), combined with the predominance of utilitarian cooking and storage vessels from the Sector G surface collection, suggests that this was a likely location for the construction of temporary domestic structures occupied by itinerant farmers/fishers attending events at the site. Unfortunately, time constraints prevented the excavation of units in this sector in 2013, but further work here would target this sector to elaborate on this theme.
Figure 4.6. Sector G at Wasi Huachuma, facing north from the top of Sector E
Huaca Colorada and Wasi Huachuma in Comparison
The evidence from the two sites suggests that they both experienced temporary occupations, though through different modes and prevalence in the styles of occupation, potentially taking place simultaneously at each site. The central portion of Sector C at Huaca Colorada is marked by a series of temporary, expedient structures laid down as needed and abandoned after a brief period of usage, never to be reoccupied, with new structures constructed over the top of or near old ones. A similar pattern at Wasi Huachuma appears in Sectors C and E and may have also taken place in Sector G, though more excavations are needed to establish this. Based on current and admittedly limited evidence from Wasi Huachuma, it is possible that the Sectors C and E were inhabited on a temporary or semipermanent basis by groups with somewhat higher status than those in Sector G. Sector G was also likely more ephemeral than Sectors C and E.
Sector A at Huaca Colorada appears to have been more permanently occupied or at least reoccupied more than once. The closest correlation at Wasi Huachuma is Sectors C and E, where layers of floors and more permanent stone walls may indicate reoccupation over time, though lacking in the apparent permanence of the architecture noted in Sector A at Huaca Colorada (e.g., full rectilinear structures with benches). The construction of floors and low walls at Wasi Huachuma is reminiscent of the expedient structures in Sector C at Huaca Colorada, yet the presence of floor sequences was more similar to Sector A. Where they differ is in the linear style of construction (i.e., a lack of corners in the walls) and what may be the specific reuse/refurbishing of specific locales, as evidenced by successive floor levels associated with specific walls. The surface collections and appearance here indicate that the residences in Sector G may have been similar in style to Sector C at Huaca Colorada.
Table 4.4. Ceramics from Sectors C/E* and G† at Wasi Huachuma
| C/E* | % of Grade | % of Total | G† | % of Grade | % of Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarian/low grade | |||||||
Cántaro rims | 3 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 7 | 50.0 | 50.0 | |
Olla rims | 8 | 8.3 | 7.9 | 3 | 21.4 | 21.4 | |
Plain body sherds | 84 | 87.5 | 83.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Tinaja rims | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4 | 28.6 | 28.6 | |
Total | 96 | 95.0 | 14 | 100.0 | |||
| Mid-grade/decorated | |||||||
Face-neck cántaros | 1 | 50.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Other | 1 | 50.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Total | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |||
| High-status serving wares | |||||||
Local high-status Moche | 2 | 66.7 | 2.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Other | 1 | 33.3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Total | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |||
TOTAL ALL | 101 | 14 | |||||
* Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from units 6, 7, 11 (2010) and 4, 5, 7 (2011), excluding burials.
† Surface collection.
The differences in scale and styles between the two sites themselves may also play a role in the level of permanence of architecture and occupation. Huaca Colorada is thought to have been the largest and possibly only major ceremonial site on the south side of the lower valley during its period of use, while Wasi Huachuma was one of a number of small sites of its kind on the north side of the river valley. These political and demographic dynamics surely affected the styles of occupation in the area. However, both sites exhibit evidence of construction indicative of use, abandonment, and reconstruction consistent with patterns of mobility among peripatetic farmers/fishers partaking in a ritual/economic/political round.
Table 4.5. Presence/absence of paleobotanical materials from Sectors C/E* and Structure B† at Wasi Huachuma
| Taxa | Sector C/E Sample* | Structure B Sample† |
|---|---|---|
Acacia sp. (acacia) | Y | |
Capparis sp. | Y | |
Capsicum sp. (pepper) | Y | Y |
Cucurbita moschata (squash/pumpkin) | Y | Y |
Encelia sp. (desert shrub) | Y | |
Erytrhroxilum coca (coca) | Y | |
Gossypium barbadense (cotton) | Y | |
Gynerium sagittatum (caña brava) | Y | |
Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd) | Y | |
Leguminosae (legumes) | Y | |
Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) | Y | |
Phragmites australis (reed) | Y | Y |
Pouteria lucuma (lúcuma) | Y | |
Prosopis sp. (algorroba) | Y | Y |
Solanum tuberosum. (potato) | Y | |
Zea mays (maize) | Y | Y |
* Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from units 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 (2013).
† Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from unit 2 (2013).
Peripatetic Households, Peripatetic Communities
Huaca Colorada and Wasi Huachuma support a population circulation model, as defined by Schachner (2012) and Gumerman (2010). To return briefly to Schachner’s application of “population circulation,” the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley is certainly fertile ground to further explore this archaeologically. The first proposition (varied circulation depending on individuals and destinations) can be understood in the Moche context through the multitude of small and large ceremonial sites with residential components (temporary, semipermanent, or otherwise) alongside the fields and seaside as destinations of equal importance, indicative of a yearly or seasonally prescribed economic, political, and ceremonial round. The second proposition (circulation centered around ecological variability, customary life [e.g., trade, marriage, warfare], and social hierarchy) is also well covered here. The coastal Peruvian ecological zone is highly variable, including desert, irrigated plains, coastal/littoral areas, and access to higher lands on hilltops and up the valleys. Movement between these zones has been well established (see Dillehay 2001; Gumerman 2010; Shimada 1982). In addition, movement for warfare and trade is well established through the archaeological examples (see Dillehay 2001, 266–267; Swenson 2003). The third proposition (the spatial separation of obligations, activities, and goods) has served as one of the primary bases for the arguments presented in this chapter. The idea that fishing ground, agricultural fields, ceremonial centers, trading sites, and locales for political observances were spread out across the landscape and not confined to a single place (e.g., towns or cities) is significant. Lastly, Schachner’s fourth proposition (fluidity in residence, group membership, and leadership) is the primary focus of this chapter. Fluidity in residence is demonstrated by the expedient residences at Huaca Colorada and reoccupied structures at Wasi Huachuma. The evidence for multiple autonomous rural settlements with shifting alliances highlights the fluidity of leadership, while the presence of differing ceramic assemblages between the various zones of the two sites potentially indicates fluid group membership.
Table 4.6. Zooarchaeological remains from Sectors C/E* at Wasi Huachuma
| Vertebrates | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mammals | NISP | % of Mammals | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | |
Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulate) | 7 | 6.4 | 4.3 | 3.0 | |
Canis familiaris (dog) | 4 | 3.6 | 2.5 | 1.7 | |
Cavia porcellus (Guinea pig) | 22 | 20.0 | 13.6 | 9.3 | |
Lama sp. (llama/guanaco) | 17 | 15.5 | 10.5 | 7.2 | |
Mammals (unidentified mammal) | 4 | 3.6 | 2.5 | 1.7 | |
Muridae (rodent) | 56 | 50.9 | 34.5 | 23.7 | |
Total | 110 | 100.0 | 67.9 | 46.6 | |
| Fish | % of Fish | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | ||
Cynoscion sp. (sea trout) | 3 | 7.5 | 1.9 | 1.3 | |
Fish (unidentified fish) | 3 | 7.5 | 1.9 | 1.3 | |
Galeichthys peruvianus (sea catfish) | 15 | 37.5 | 9.3 | 6.4 | |
Mugil cephalus (flathead mullet) | 17 | 42.5 | 10.5 | 7.2 | |
Sardinops sagax (South American pilchard) | 1 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | |
Stellifer minor (lined drum) | 1 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | |
Total | 40 | 100.0 | 24.8 | 17.0 | |
| Birds | % of Birds | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | ||
Bird (unidentified bird) | 1 | 33.3 | 0.6 | 0.4 | |
Zenaida asiatica (white-winged dove) | 2 | 66.7 | 1.2 | 0.8 | |
Total | 3 | 100.0 | 1.8 | 1.2 | |
| Reptiles | % of Reptiles | % of Vertebrates | % of Total | ||
Dicrodon sp. (tegu) | 8 | 88.9 | 4.9 | 3.4 | |
Reptile (unidentified reptile) | 1 | 11.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | |
Total | 9 | 100.0 | 5.5 | 3.8 | |
TOTAL VERTEBRATES | 162 | ||||
| Invertebrates | |||||
| Mollusks | NISP | % of Mollusks | % of Total | ||
Donax obesulus (surf clam) | 3 | 4.1 | 1.3 | ||
Drymaeus tigris (land snail) | 1 | 1.3 | 0.4 | ||
Helisoma sp. (freshwater snail) | 5 | 6.7 | 2.1 | ||
Lymnaea sp. (freshwater snail) | 4 | 5.4 | 1.7 | ||
Polinices uber (moon sea snail) | 11 | 14.9 | 4.7 | ||
Prisogaster niger (turban sea snail) | 4 | 5.4 | 1.7 | ||
Pupoides sp. (land snail) | 33 | 44.6 | 14.0 | ||
Scutalus sp. (land snail) | 2 | 2.7 | 0.8 | ||
Tegula atra (sea snail) | 7 | 9.5 | 3.0 | ||
Thais chocolata (locate/rock snail/sea snail) | 3 | 4.1 | 1.3 | ||
Xanthochorus buxea (sea snail/rock snail) | 1 | 1.3 | 0.4 | ||
Total | 74 | 100.0 | 31.4 | ||
TOTAL INVERTEBRATES | 74 | ||||
TOTAL ALL | 236 | ||||
* Includes all floors, subfloor fill, floor overburden, hearth, and trash contexts from units 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 (2013).
William H. Isbell (2000) noted that many of our ideas of past communities are impositions from later time periods, and others have argued that much of our work as archaeologists has uncritically imposed modernist, Western ontology into nonmodern contexts (see Alberti and Bray 2009; Alberti and Marshall 2009; Alberti et al. 2011; Barad 2003; Fowler 2013; Fowles 2013; Marshall and Alberti 2014). In fact, many of our interpretations of the past take a universalist view of humanity, imposing conceptions from our current world onto those of the past. However, the material configurations we see in our archaeological data can and should challenge those conceptions (see Alberti and Marshall 2009; Viveiros de Castro 1998, 2004). If our goal is to attempt to understand the ontologies of past societies in part through analyzing community organization, it is crucial to recognize that a community is not necessarily defined by the social interactions between groups of households in a specific locale. Rather, we should consider the material evidence we recover from such contexts as a means of assessing the potential varieties of alternative community configurations that may have existed in the past.
Households have been argued to be the building blocks of communities (e.g., Arensberg 1955; Hollingshead 1948; Kolb and Snead 1997; Murdock 1949; Redfield 1963 [1955]; Wolf 1957). However, as has been made clear here, the term community is problematic (see Yaeger and Canuto 2000). Donna J. Nash (2009) asserts that not only is the household a basic socioeconomic unit wherein activities such as food production, processing, consumption, and disposal occur, but it is also the basic social unit through which social distinctions are materially negotiated. She asserts that to understand the “societal whole” (Nash 2009, 206), archaeologists must look first and foremost at residential data. These data often include paleobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence, tool remains, architectural and spatial information, and ceramic cooking vessels. This interrelated dataset can provide the basis from which to interpret the components and complexities of quotidian practices as including gender constructions and status differentiation (among others). However, this idea of the household as a basic socioeconomic unit is predicated on the idea of a singular household structure in which a bounded group of people reside and conduct their daily lives on a continuous basis. As I have established above, such a structure, not to mention such a group, is not always present, and some structures that have been interpreted as “houses” are not always what they seem.
Change clearly occurred in the Jequetepeque Valley with the onset of the Late Moche Period (Castillo Butters 2001; Dillehay and Kolata 2004; Swenson 2007). I argue that the rural inhabitants of the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley were the agents of their own destinies during the emerging fluctuations in environmental and political conditions. In short, by executing a mobile pattern of ritual/political observances and economic labor/exchange, rural communities exercised both their local autonomy and their inclusion within larger networks of interaction, also allowing them the flexibility to adjust to the environmental and political fluctuations common during this period. Further studies of rural areas at small ceremonial sites, villages, and farmsteads, in combination with the existing and growing data from urban centers, can only improve upon our knowledge of the diversity and malleability of Moche communities.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Ilana Johnson and Michelle Koons for inviting me to be a part of the 2014 SAA session from which this chapter has sprung. In addition, a sincere thank you to David Pacifico, Ilana Johnson (again), and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive editorial commentary and suggestions. Edward Swenson, John Warner, and Jorge Chiguala deserve extra appreciation for allowing me to delve into the Huaca Colorada database and for sharing their project photos. My research at Wasi Huachuma would not have been possible without funding from the Wenner-Gren Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Grant #Gr. 8640). Lastly, thank you to Sarah M. Rowe and Giles Spence Morrow for their commentary and critiques on earlier drafts of this chapter.
Notes
1. This autonomy was limited in many ways, including obligatory attendance at ritual and administrative events, but was evident in the lack of overarching political structures during this period and in the likelihood that these smaller centers had the ability to shift loyalties or affiliation from other, larger centers or local elites depending on circumstances (see Swenson 2006).
2. Found as part of the Sector C surface collection.
References
Alberti, Benjamin, and Tamara L. Bray. 2009. “Animating Archaeology: Of Subjects, Objects, and Alternative Ontologies.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19 (3): 337–343.
Alberti, Benjamin, Severin Fowles, Martin Holbraad, Yvonne Marshall, and Christopher Witmore. 2011. “Worlds Otherwise.” Current Anthropology 52 (6): 896–912.
Alberti, Benjamin, and Yvonne Marshall. 2009 “Animating Archaeology: Local Theories and Conceptually Open-Ended Methodologies.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19 (3): 344–356.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Arensberg, Conrad M. 1955. “American Communities.” American Anthropologist 57 (6): 1143–1162.
Arsenault, Daniel. 1992. “Ritual Dietary Practices in Mochica Society: The Context of the Feast.” Recherches amérindiennes au Québec 22 (1): 45–64.
Barad, Karen. 2003. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs 28 (3): 801–831.
Bawden, Garth. 1982. “Community Organization Reflected by the Household: A Study of Pre-Columbian Social Dynamics.” Journal of Field Archaeology 9 (2): 165–181.
Bawden, Garth. 2001. “The Symbols of Late Moche Social Transformation.” In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 285–306. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. Algeria 1960: The Disenchantment of the World, the Sense of Honour, the Kabyle House or the World Reversed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Canuto, Marcello A., and Jason Yaeger, eds. 2000. The Archaeology of Communities. London: Routledge.
Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime. 2000. “La presencia de Wari en San José de Moro.” Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 4: 143–179.
Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime. 2001. “The Last of the Mochicas: A View from the Jequetepeque Valley.” In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 307–332. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime. 2010. “Moche Politics in the Jequetepeque Valley: A Case for Political Opportunism.” In New Perspectives in Moche Political Organization, edited by Luis Jaime Castillo Butters and Jeffrey Quilter, 1–24. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime, Julio Rucabado Yong, Martín del Carpio Perla, Katiusha Bernuy Quiroga, Karim Ruíz, Carlos Rengifo, Gabriel Prieto Burmester, and Carole Fraresse. 2008. “Ideología y poder en la consolidacíon, colapso y reconstitucíon del Estado Mochica del Jequetepeque: El Proyecto Arqueoloógico San José de Moro (1991–2006).” Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology 29: 1–86.
Chapdelaine, Claude. 2001. “The Growing Power of a Moche Urban Class.” In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 69–88. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Chapdelaine, Claude. 2009. “Domestic Life in and around the Urban Sector of the Huacas of Moche Site, Northern Peru.” In Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity, edited by Linda Manzanilla and Claude Chapdelaine, 181–196. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Chapman, Murray, and R. Mansell Prothero. 1985. “Circulation between ‘Home’ and Other Places: Some Propositions.” In Circulation in Population Movement: Substance and Concepts from the Melanesian Case, edited by Murray Chapman and R. Mansell Prothero, 1–12. London: Routledge.
Cohen, Anthony P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Contreras, Daniel A. 2010. “Landscape and Environment: Insights from the Prehispanic Central Andes.” Journal of Archaeological Research 18 (3): 241–288.
Coupland, Gary, Terrence Clark, and Amanda Palmer. 2009. “Hierarchy, Communalism, and the Spatial Order of Northwest Coast Plank Houses: A Comparative Study.” American Antiquity 74 (1): 77–106.
Cusicanqui Marsano, Solsiré. 2010. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Los Asentamientos De San Ildefonso y Cerro Chepén, Valle Bajo De Jequetepeque. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP).
Cutright, Robyn E. 2010. “Food, Family, and Empire: Relating Political and Domestic Change in the Jequetepeque Hinterland.” In Comparative Perspectives on the Archaeology of Coastal South America, edited by Robyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-Hurtado, and Alexander J. Martin, 27–44. Pittsburgh: Center for Comparative Archaeology, University of Pittsburgh.
Cutright, Robyn E. 2011. “Food for the Dead, Cuisine for the Living: Mortuary Food Offerings from the Jequetepeque Valley, Peru.” In From State to Empire in the Prehistoric Jequetepeque Valley, Peru, edited by Colleen M. Zori and Ilana Johnson, 83–92. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Cutting, Marion. 2003. “The Use of Spatial Analysis to Study Prehistoric Settlement Architecture.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22 (1): 1–21.
Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich. 2001. “Feasts and Labor Mobilization: Dissecting a Fundamental Economic Practice.” In Feasts: Theorizing the Feast, ed. Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, 240–264. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dillehay, Tom D. 2001. “Town and Country in Late Moche Times: A View from Two Northern Valleys.” In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 259–284. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dillehay, Tom D., and Alan L. Kolata. 2004. “Long-Term Human Response to Uncertain Environmental Conditions in the Andes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 101 (12): 4325–4330.
Dillehay, Tom D., Alan L. Kolata, and Edward R. Swenson. 2009. Paisajes Culturales en el Valle del Jequetepeque: Los Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Trujillo, Peru: Ediciones SIAN.
Donnan, Christopher B. 2011. “Moche Substyles: Keys to Understanding Moche Political Organization.” Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 16 (1): 105–118.
Donnan, Christopher B., and Guillermo A. Cock, eds. 1997. The Pacatnamú Papers, vol. 2. Los Angeles: Fowler Museum of Cultural History, University of California.
Duke, Guy S. 2017. “Consuming Identities: Communities and Culinary Practice in the Late Moche Jequetepeque Valley, Peru.” PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, ON.
Fowler, Chris. 2013. “Dynamic Assemblages, or the Past Is What Endures.” In Archaeology after Interpretation, edited by Benjamin Alberti, Andrew Meirion Jones, and Joshua Pollard, 235–256. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Fowles, Severin M. 2013. An Archaeology of Doings: Secularism and the Study of Pueblo Religion. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
Gataveckas, Katrina. 2011. “Landscape, Household, and Gender in Late Moche Jequetepeque.” MA research paper, University of Toronto, ON.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity.
Gumerman, George J., IV. 1997. “Botanical Offerings in Moche Burials at Pacatnamú.” In The Pacatnamú Papers: The Moche Occupation, vol. 2, edited by Christopher B. Donnan and Guillermo A. Cock, 243–249. Los Angeles: Fowler Museum of Cultural History, University of California.
Gumerman, George J., IV. 2002. “Llama Power and Empowered Fishermen: Food and Power at Pacatnamú, Peru.” In The Dynamics of Power, edited by Maria O’Donovan, 238–256. Occasional Paper 30. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Gumerman, George J., IV. 2010. “Big Hearths and Big Pots: Moche Feasting on the North Coast of Peru.” In Inside Ancient Kitchens: New Directions in the Study of Daily Meals and Feasts, edited by Elizabeth A. Klarich, 111–131. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Gumerman, George J., IV, and Jesus Briceño. 2003. “Santa Rosa—Quirihuac y Ciudad de Dios: Asentamientos Rurales en la Parte Media del Valle de Moche.” In Moche: Hacia el Final del Milenio, Tomo I [Actas del Segundo Coloquio sobre la Cultura Moche: Trujillo, 1 al 7 de agosto de 1999], edited by Santiago Uceda Castillo and Elías Mujica, 119–150. Trujillo: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Universidad Nacional de Trujillo.
Hegmon, Michelle. 2002. “Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research.” In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, 263–279. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Hendon, Julia A. 2003. “Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25 (1): 45–61.
Hirsch, Eric. 2018. “Remapping the Vertical Archipelago: Mobility, Migration, and the Everyday Labor of Andean Development.” Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 23 (1): 189–208.
Hodder, Ian. 1994. “Burials, Houses, Women, and Men in the European Neolithic.” In Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, edited by Michael P. Pearson and Colin Richards, 51–68. London: Routledge.
Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford. 2004. “Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük.” American Antiquity 69 (1): 17–40.
Hollingshead, August B. 1948. “Community Research: Development and Present Condition.” American Sociological Review 13 (2): 136–156.
Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill. London: Routledge.
Isbell, William H. 1995. “Constructing the Andean Past or ‘As You Like It.’ ” Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 23 (1–2): 1–12.
Isbell, William H. 1996. “Household and Ayni in the Andean Past.” Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 24 (1–2): 249–295.
Isbell, William H. 2000. “What We Should Be Studying: The ‘Imagined Community’ and the ‘Natural Community.’ ” In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, 243–266. London: Routledge.
Johnson, Ilana. 2008. “Portachuelo de Charcape: Daily Life and Political Power in the Hinterland during the Late Moche Period.” In Arqueología Mochica Nuevos Enfoques: Actas del Primer Congreso Internacional de Jóvenes Investigadores de la Cultura Moche, edited by Luis Jaime Castillo Butters, Helaine Bernier, Gregory Lockard, and Julio Rucabado Yong, 261–274. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú Fondo Editorial.
Johnson, Ilana. 2010. “Households and Social Organization at the Late Moche Period Site of Pampa Grande, Peru.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Johnson, Ilana. 2011. “The Development of Semi-Autonomous Communities in the Late Moche Period (AD 600–900).” In From State to Empire in the Prehistoric Jequetepeque Valley, Peru, edited by Colleen Zori and Ilana Johnson, 51–64. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Jurado, M. Carolina. 2013. “Doble Domicilio: Relaciones Sociales y Complementariedad Ecológica en El Norte de Potosí (Bolivia) del Temprano Siglo XVII.” Chungara, Revista De Antropología Chilena 45 (4): 613–630.
Keatinge, Richard W. 1975. “Urban Settlement Systems and Rural Sustaining Communities: An Example from Chan Chan’s Hinterland.” Journal of Field Archaeology 2 (3): 215–227.
Kent, Susan. 1992. “Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns.” American Antiquity 57 (4): 635–660.
Kent, Susan, and Helga Vierich. 1989. “The Myth of Ecological Determinism—Anticipated Mobility and Site Spatial Organization.” In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by Susan Kent, 96–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kolb, Michael J., and James E. Snead. 1997. “It’s a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology.” American Antiquity 62 (4): 609–628.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1982. “The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl.” In The Way of the Masks, 163–187. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lynch, Sally. 2013. “A Ceramic-Based Analysis of Feasting and Power at the Moche Site of Huaca Colorada, Jequetepeque Valley, Peru.” MA research paper, University of Toronto, ON.
Mac Sweeney, Naoíse. 2011. Community Identity and Archaeology: Dynamic Communities at Aphrodisias and Beycesultan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Marshall, Yvonne, and Benjamin Alberti. 2014. “A Matter of Difference: Karen Barad, Ontology and Archaeological Bodies.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24 (1): 19–36.
Moore, Jerry D. 2012. The Prehistory of Home. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Murdock, George P. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Murra, John V. 1956. “The Economic Organization of the Inca State.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, IL.
Nash, Donna J. 2009. “Household Archaeology in the Andes.” Journal of Archaeological Research 17 (3): 205–261.
Owoc, Mary A. 2005. “From the Ground Up: Agency, Practice, and Community in the Southwestern British Bronze Age.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (4): 257–281.
Pauketat, Timothy R. 2000. “Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley.” In The Archaeology of Communities, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, 16–43. London: Routledge.
Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt. 2005. “Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture-Making.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (3): 213–237.
Pozorski, Shelia, and Thomas Pozorski. 2003. “La Arquitectura Residencial y la Subsistancia de los Habitants de Sitio de Moche: Evidencia Recuperada por el Proyecto Chan Chan—Valle de Moche.” In Moche: Hacia el final del milenio, Tomo I [Actas del segundo coloquio sobre la cultura Moche: Trujillo, 1 al 7 de agosto de 1999], edited by Santiago Uceda Castillo and Elias Mujica, 119–150. Trujillo: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Universidad Nacional de Trujillo.
Redfield, Robert. 1963 [1955]. The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Robin, Cynthia. 2002. “Outside of Houses.” Journal of Social Archaeology 2 (2): 245–268.
Robin, Cynthia. 2003. “New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology.” Journal of Archaeological Research 11 (4): 307–356.
Rosas Rintel, Marcos. 2007. “Nuevas Perspectivas Acerca del Colapso Moche en el Bajo Jequetepeque.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 36 (2): 221–240.
Rosas Rintel, Marcos. 2010. “Cerro Chepén and the Late Moche Collapse in the Jequetepeque Valley, North Coast of Peru.” PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Rowe, Sarah M. 2014. “Community and Memory at the Late Valdivia Site of Buen Suceso, Ecuador.” PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Saignes, Thierry. 1995. “Andean Tribute, Migration, and Trade: Remapping the Boundaries of Ethnicity and Exchange.” In Ethnicity, Markets, and Migration in the Andes at the Crossroads of History and Anthropology, edited by Brooke Larson, Olivia Harris, and Enrique Tandeter, 167–195. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Schachner, Gregson. 2012. “Population Circulation and the Transformation of Ancient Zuni Communities.” PhD dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Schwartz, Glenn M., and Steven E. Falconer, eds. 1994. Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Shimada, Izumi. 1982. “Horizontal Archipelago and Coast-Highland Interaction in North Peru: Archaeological Models.” Senri Ethnological Studies Osaka 10: 137–210.
Shimada, Izumi. 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Shimada, Izumi. 2001. “Late Moche Urban Craft Production: A First Approximation.” In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 176–205. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stanish, Charles. 1989. “Household Archeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central Andes.” American Anthropologist 91 (1): 7–24.
Steward, Julian H. 1938. Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bulletin 120. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution.
Swenson, Edward R. 2003. “Cities of Violence: Sacrifice, Power, and Urbanization in the Andes.” Journal of Social Archaeology 3 (2): 256–296.
Swenson, Edward R. 2004. “Ritual and Power in the Urban Hinterland: Religious Pluralism and Political Decentralization in Late Moche Jequetepeque, Peru.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, IL.
Swenson, Edward R. 2006. “Competitive Feasting, Religious Pluralism, and Decentralized Power in the Late Moche Period.” In Andean Archaeology III: North and South, edited by William H. Isbell and Helaine Silverman, 112–142. New York: Springer.
Swenson, Edward R. 2007. “Adaptive Strategies or Ideological Innovations? Interpreting Sociopolitical Developments in the Jequetepeque Valley of Peru during the Late Moche Period.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2): 253–282.
Swenson, Edward R. 2008. “San Ildefonso and the ‘Popularization’ of Moche Ideology in the Jequetepeque Valley.” In Arqueología Mochica Nuevos Enfoques: Actas del Primer Congreso Internacional de Jóvenes Investigadores de la Cultura Moche, edited by Luis Jaime Castillo Butters, Helaine Bernier, Gregory Lockard, and Julio Rucabado Yong, 411–431. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú Fondo Editorial.
Swenson, Edward R. 2011. “Stagecraft and the Politics of Spectacle in Ancient Peru.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21 (2): 283–313.
Swenson, Edward R. 2012. “Moche Ceremonial Architecture as Thirdspace: The Politics of Place-making in the Ancient Andes.” Journal of Social Archaeology 12 (1): 3–28.
Swenson, Edward R. 2018. “Assembling the Moche: The Power of Temporary Gatherings on the North Coast of Peru.” World Archaeology 29: 1–24.
Swenson, Edward R., and Jorge Y. Chiguala. 2018. “Relaciones entre el espacio ritual y doméstico en el valle Jequetepeque, Perú.” Bulletin De l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 47 (2): 195–216.
Swenson, Edward R., Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. 2008. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2007. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. 2009. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2008. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. 2010. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2009. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. 2011. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2010. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. 2012. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2011. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. 2013. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2012. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., Francisco Seoane, and John P. Warner. 2015. Proyecto de Investigacion Arqueologica Jatanca—Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque: Informe Final, Temporada 2015. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Swenson, Edward R., and John P. Warner. 2012. “Crucibles of Power: Forging Copper and Forging Subjects at the Moche Ceremonial Center of Huaca Colorada, Peru.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31 (3): 314–333.
van Buren, Mary. 1996. “Rethinking the Vertical Archipelago: Ethnicity, Exchange, and History in the South Central Andes.” American Anthropologist 98 (2): 338–351.
van Gijseghem, Hendrik. 2001. “Household and Family at Moche, Peru: An Analysis of Building and Residence Patterns in a Prehispanic Urban Center.” Latin American Antiquity 12 (3): 257–273.
Varien, Mark D. 1999. Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Varien, Mark D., and James M. Potter, eds. 2008. The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Varien, Mark D., and Richard H. Wilshusen, eds. 2002. Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Vásquez Sánchez, Victor, and Teresa E. Rosales Tham. 2011. “Restos de Fauna y Vegetales de Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque—Temporada 2010.” In Informe Final Proyecto Arqueologico Jatanca–Huaca Colorada, Valle Jequetepeque Temporada 2010, apendice 1, edited by Edward R. Swenson, Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Vásquez Sánchez, Victor, and Teresa E. Rosales Tham. 2012. “Restos de Fauna y Vegetales de Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque—Temporada 2011.” In Informe Final Proyecto Arqueologico Jatanca–Huaca Colorada, Valle Jequetepeque Temporada 2011, apendice 1, edited by Edward R. Swenson, Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Vásquez Sánchez, Victor, and Teresa E. Rosales Tham. 2013. “Restos de Fauna y Vegetales de Huaca Colorada, Valle de Jequetepeque—Temporada 2012.” In Informe Final Proyecto Arqueologico Jatanca–Huaca Colorada, Valle Jequetepeque Temporada 2012, apendice 1, edited by Edward R. Swenson, Jorge Y. Chiguala, and John P. Warner. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Vásquez Sánchez, Victor, and Teresa E. Rosales Tham. 2014. “Restos de Fauna y Vegetales del Sitio Je64, Valle de Jequetepeque—Temporada 2013.” In Proyecto de Investigación Arqueologica: la Vida Doméstica y la Dieta en Wasi Huachuma (Je-64), Valle Jequetepeque—Informe Final de Temporada 2013, edited by Guy S. Duke and Jessica J. Ramirez Goicochea, apendice 1. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Vining, Benjamin R. 2011. “Ruralism, Land Use History, and Holocene Climate in the Suches Highlands, Southern Peru.” PhD dissertation, Boston University, MA.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1998. “Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4 (3): 469–488.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2004. “Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies.” Common Knowledge 10 (3): 463–484.
Wernke, Steven A. 2007. “Negotiating Community and Landscape in the Peruvian Andes: A Transconquest View.” American Anthropologist 109 (1): 130–152.
White, Christine, Andrew Nelson, Fred Longstaffe, Gisela Grupe, and Achim Jung. 2009. “Landscape Bioarchaeology at Pacatnamú, Peru: Inferring Mobility from δ13C and δ15N Values of Hair.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (7): 1527–1537.
Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje. 1982. “Household Archaeology.” American Behavioral Scientist 25 (6): 617–639.
Wolf, Eric R. 1957. “Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13 (1): 1–18.
Yaeger, Jason, and Marcello A. Canuto. 2000. “Introducing an Archaeology of Communities.” In The Archaeology of Communities, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, 1–15. London: Routledge.