No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Chaîne Opératoire as an Approach to Distinguish between the Ceramic Production of the Viru and the Moche Polities on the North Coast of Peru
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2023
Abstract
Ceramics play a central role in the debates around the relationship between the Viru and the Moche. A recent model considers Negative and Moche-decorated ceramics produced by potters affiliated with the elites to be the cultural markers of the Viru and Moche populations, respectively. Due to the similarity of Viru and Moche plain-wares and the presence of Castillo Decorated ceramics in Viru and Moche contexts, this model sees both types of ceramics as domestic traditions, produced by independent potters and sharing a common technique. The research we present here supports this recent model by reconsidering the social and cultural meaning associated with these ceramic types: it uses a novel approach for South America of reconstructing the chaîne opératoire by studying the traces visible on ceramics at a macroscopic and microscopic scale. The study demonstrates how these potters used their own traditions to produce decorated and undecorated ceramics. Furthermore, we found that Castillo Decorated is a type produced only by Viru potters, and we argue that its presence in Moche contexts is evidence of the numerous exchanges maintained by these two populations.
Resumen
La cerámica desempeña un papel central en los debates sobre la relación entre los Virú y los Moche. Un modelo reciente considera que las cerámicas con decoración negativa y las Moche decoradas son los respectivos marcadores culturales de estas poblaciones, producidos por alfareros afiliados a las élites. Debido a una aparente similitud entre las cerámicas no decoradas Virú y Moche, y a la presencia de cerámica Castillo Decorado en contextos Virú y Moche, este modelo considera ambos tipos como tradiciones domésticas, producidas por alfareros independientes que comparten una técnica común. La presente investigación contribuye a este reciente modelo, al reconsiderar el significado social y cultural asociado a estos tipos cerámicos, utilizando un enfoque novedoso para Suramérica que busca reconstruir la chaîne opératoire, analizando las huellas visibles en las cerámicas a escala macroscópica y microscópica. Este articulo proporciona el estudio tecnológico de las tradiciones alfareras Virú y Moche y demuestra cómo sus productores emplearon sus propias tradiciones para elaborar las cerámicas decoradas y no decoradas. Además, comprobamos que el Castillo Decorado es un tipo producido únicamente por alfareros Virú, y planteamos que su presencia en contextos Moche evidencia los numerosos intercambios mantenidos por ambas poblaciones.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology
References
References Cited
Arrelucea, Leonardo, Prieto, Gabriel, Druc, Isabelle, and Zeballos, Elvira. 2019. Qué hay detrás de las vasijas? Estudio de la cerámica con decoración negativa en Pampa la Cruz, Bahía de Huanchaco, Costa Norte del Perú del 200 al 500 d.C. In Actas V Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Volumen II, pp. 81–89. Ministerio de Cultura, Lima.Google Scholar
Bennett, Wendell C. 1939. Archaeology of the North Coast of Peru: An Account of Exploration and Excavation in Viru and Lambayeque Valleys. Anthropological Papers Vol. 37, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Bennett, Wendell C. 1950. The Gallinazo Group: Viru Valley, Peru. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 43. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bernier, Hélène. 2010. Craft Specialists at Moche: Organization, Affiliations, and Identities. Latin American Antiquity 21:22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billman, Brian, Ringberg, Jennifer, Bardolph, Dana, and Briceño, Jesús. 2019. Investigando Cerro León, una colonia altoandina del Período Intermedio Temprano en la chaupiyunga del valle de Moche, Perú. In Actas de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Trujillo: Nuevas perspectivas en la arqueología de los valles de Virú, Moche y Chicama, edited by Prieto, Gabriel and Boswell, Alicia, pp. 84–115. Fondo Editorial Universitario, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru.Google Scholar
Bird, Junius, Hyslop, John, and Dimitrijevic, Milica. 1985. The Preceramic Excavations at the Huaca Prieta, Chicama Valley, Peru, Pt. I. Anthropological Papers Vol. 62. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Bourget, Steve. 2010. Cultural Assignations during the Early Intermediate Period. In New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, edited by Quilter, Jeffrey and Castillo, Luis Jaime, pp. 223–251. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bracamonte, Edgar. 2008. Secuencia cultural en los sectores II y III del Complejo Arqueológico Sipán: Caracterización e importancia. Master's thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru.Google Scholar
Brumfield, Elizabeth, and Earle, Timothy (editors). 1987. Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Campaña, Victor, and Prieto, Gabriel. 2022. Excavando Pampa La Cruz: Proyecto de Rescate Arqueológico Las Lomas de Huanchaco. Ediciones Rafael Valdez, Lima.Google Scholar
Chapdelaine, Claude, Kennedy, Greg, and Uceda, Santiago. 1995. Activación neutrónica en el estudio de la producción local de la cerámica ritual en el sitio Moche, Perú. Bulletin de l'Institut Français d’Études Andines 24:182–212.Google Scholar
Chavarria, Helen. 2021. Producción, uso y función de la cerámica Moche en Pampa La Cruz, bahía de Huanchaco, valle de Moche. Thesis for professional degree in archaeology, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru.Google Scholar
Kathryn M., Cleland, and Shimada, Izumi. 1998. Paleteada Potters: Technology, Production Sphere, and Sub-Culture in Ancient Peru. In Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization, and Approach, edited by Shimada, Izumi, pp. 111–151. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Comeca, Gianina, Prieto, Gabriel, Druc, Isabelle, and Espinosa, Alicia. 2021. Tecnología cerámica de unidades domesticas: Un análisis del repertorio cerámico de las fases Salinar (400 a.C.-100 a.C.) y Virú (100 a.C.-400/550 d.C.) del sitio Pampa La Cruz, costa norte del Perú. Paper presented at the Eighth Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Peru (Online). https://congresoarqueologia.cultura.gob.pe/node/809, accessed March 2, 2022.Google Scholar
Cossío, Aurelio, and Jaén, Hugo. 1967. Geología de los Cuadrángulos de Puemape, Chocope, Otuzco, Trujillo, Salaverry y Santa (Hojas 16-d, 16-e, 16-f, 17-e, 17-f, 18-f). Report No. 17. Instituto Geológico y Minero, Lima.Google Scholar
Costin, Cathy. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1–56.Google Scholar
Costin, Cathy. 2005. Craft Production. In Handbook of Methods in Archaeology, edited by Maschner, Herbert and Chippindale, Christopher, pp. 1032–1105. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Costin, Cathy, and Hagstrum, Melissa. 1995. Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Solar, Nino. 2015. Contribution des sciences archéologiques à la connaissance des choix techniques Mochica et Cajamarca: Étude des matériaux céramiques du site San José de Moro (VIIIe–Xe s. apr. J. C.). PhD dissertation, Archéologie et Préhistoire, Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux III, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Donnan, Christopher. 1971. Ancient Peruvian Potter's Marks and Their Interpretation through Ethnographic Analogy. American Antiquity 36:460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnan, Christopher. 2004. Moche Portraits from Ancient Peru. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Donnan, Christopher. 2009. The Gallinazo Illusion. In Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Millaire, Jean-François and Morlion, Magali, pp. 17–32. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, Jordan. 2015. Statecraft in the Viru Valley, in the First Millennium A.D. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2687/, accessed February 2, 2021.Google Scholar
Espinosa, Alicia. 2021. Remettre la céramique non décorée au cœur des problématiques culturelles: Le cas des traditions techniques Virú-Gallinazo et Mochica. In Artisanat et savoir-faire: Archéologie des techniques, edited by Bouché, Fanny, Bouzaglou, Liora, Pinto, Alexandre, and Sauvageot, Prune. Éditions de la Sorbonne, Paris. http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/78977, accessed February 2, 2021.Google Scholar
Espinosa, Alicia, Isabelle Druc, Jean-François Millaire, Prieto, Gabriel, and Arrelucea, Leonardo. 2021. Cultural Filiations between the Viru Communities, Early Intermediate Period, Northern Coast of Peru: Recent Contributions from Ceramic Technology. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 40:103232.Google Scholar
Espinosa, Alicia, Prieto, Gabriel, and Alva, Walter. 2019. Tradiciones técnicas y producción cerámica virú-gallinazo y mochica: Nuevas miradas sobre las relaciones entre dos grupos sociales del Período Intermedio Temprano en la costa norte del Perú. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 26:85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, Heidy. 1993. Settlements in Time: A Study of Social and Political Development during the Gallinazo Occupation of the North Coast of Peru. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ford, James. 1949. Cultural Dating of Prehistoric Sites in Viru Valley, Peru. In Surface Survey of the Viru Valley, Peru, edited by Ford, James and Willey, Gordon, pp. 29–87. Anthropological Papers Vol. 44, Pt. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Gamarra, Nadia, and Gayoso, Henry. 2008. La cerámica doméstica de Huacas de Moche: Un intento de tipología y seriación. In Arqueología mochica: Nuevos enfoques, edited by Castillo, Luis Jaime, Bernier, Hélène, Lockard, Gregory, and Racabado, Julio, pp. 187–202. Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Lima.Google Scholar
Hegmon, Michelle. 1998. Technology, Style, and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Stark, Miriam, pp. 264–279. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Koons, Michele. 2015. Internal vs. External: An Examination of Moche Politics through Similarities and Differences in Ceramic Style. In Ceramics Analysis in the Andes, edited by Druc, Isabelle, pp. 57–82. Deep University Press, Blue Mounds, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Larco Hoyle, Rafael. 1945. La cultura virú. Sociedad Geográfica Americana, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Larco Hoyle, Rafael. 1948. Cronología arqueológica del norte del Perú. Sociedad Geográfica Americana, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1973. Évolution et techniques: Milieu et techniques. Albin Michel, Paris.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François. 2009. Gallinazo and the Tradición Norcosteña. In Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Millaire, Jean-François and Morlion, Magali, pp. 1–16. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François. 2010a. Primary State Formation in the Viru Valley, North Coast of Peru. PNAS 107:6186–6191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millaire, Jean-François. 2010b. Moche Political Expansionism as Viewed from Viru: Recent Archaeological Work in the Close Periphery of a Hegemonic City-State System. In New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, edited by Quilter, Jeffrey and Castillo, Luis Jaime, pp. 223–251. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François, and Morlion, Magali (editors). 2009. Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millaire, Jean-François, Prieto, Gabriel, Surette, Flannery, Redmond, Elsa, and Spencer, Charles. 2016. Statecraft and Expansionary Dynamics: A Viru Outpost at Huaca Prieta, Chicama Valley, Peru. PNAS 113: E6016–E6025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, Bradley, Prieto, Gabriel, and Osores, Carlos. 2018. Methodological Advances in Household Archaeology: An Application of Microartifact Analysis at Pampa La Cruz, Huanchaco, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 38:57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Gabriel. 2018. Informe anual Programa Arqueológico Huanchaco 2016–2017. Report presented at the Comisión Nacional Técnica de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.Google Scholar
Prieto, Gabriel and Chavarria, Helen. 2017. La ocupación moche en Pampa la Cruz-Huanchaco. Arkinka 261:96–105.Google Scholar
Rice, Prudence. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rohfritsch, Agnès. 2010. Contribución arqueométrica al estudio de las técnicas y de la organización de la producción de cerámica ritual en la sociedad Mochica (150–850 d.C., costa norte del Perú). Bulletin de l'Institut Français d’Études Andines 39:389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, Valentine. 2016. Des céramiques et des hommes, décoder les assemblages archéologiques. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Glenn, Banks, Leonard, and Briceño, Jesús. 1998. The Cerro Mayal Workshop: Addressing Issues of Craft Specialization in Moche Society. In Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization and Approaches, edited by Shimada, Izumi, pp. 63–90. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Sharp, Kayeleigh. 2019. Rethinking the Gallinazo: A Northern Perspective from the Mid-Zaña Valley, Peru. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Sharp, Kayeleigh. 2020. Repensar la coexistencia de los gallinazo y mochica: Desde una dicotomía básica hasta una clasificación fuzzy. In Arqueología: Temáticas e perspectivas teórico-metodológicos de Pesquisa, edited by Fernandes da Costa, Luis Ricardo, pp. 51–64. Atena Editora, Ponta Grossa, Brazil.Google Scholar
Sharp, Kayeleigh. 2022. La economía del cobre en la entidad política y étnica Gallinazo del norte. In IX CNA: VIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, edited by Lleras, Roberto and Vetter, Luisa, pp. 193–106. Ministerio de Cultura, Lima.Google Scholar
Shepard, Anna. 1980. Ceramics for the Archaeologists. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Shimada, Izumi. 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Shimada, Izumi, and Maguiña, Adriana. 1994. Nueva visión sobre la cultura Gallinazo y su relación con la cultura Moche. In Moche: Propuestas y perspectivas, edited by Uceda, Santiago and Mujica, Elías, pp. 31–58. Travaux de l'Institut Français d’Études Andines No. 79. Universidad Nacional de La Libertad, Trujillo, Peru; Institut Français d’Études Andines, Lima.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, William, and Evans, Clifford. 1952. Cultural Stratigraphy in the Viru Valley, Northern Peru: The Formative and Florescent Epochs. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surette, Flannery. 2015. Viru and Moche Textiles on the North Coast of Peru during the Early Intermediate Period: Material Culture, Domestic Traditions and Elite Fashions. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2829/, accessed January 15, 2016.Google Scholar
Uceda, Santiago, and Armas, José. 1998. An Urban Pottery Workshop at the Site of Moche, North Coast of Peru. In Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization, and Approaches, edited by Shimada, Izumi, pp. 91–110. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Uceda, Santiago, Gayoso, Henry, and Gamarra, Nadia. 2009. The Gallinazo at Huacas de Moche: Style or Culture? In Gallinazo: An Early Cultural Tradition on the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Millaire, Jean-François and Morlion, Magali, pp. 105–123. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon. 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 155. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar