Household Ofrendas and Community Feasts: Ritual at a Late Intermediate Period Village in the Jequetepeque Valley, Peru

HOUSEHOLD OFRENDAS AND COMMUNITY FEASTS: RITUAL AT A LATEINTERMEDIATE PERIOD VILLAGE IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU

Robyn E. Cutright

This article explores domestic and community rituals in the Late Intermediate Period village of Pedregal, in the lowerJequetepeque Valley on the north coast of Peru. Excavations in 2006 identified rituals on multiple scales, from offeringsof burnt maize within houses to community feasts. Some of these rituals used imported products or referenced publicrituals at elite centers, incorporating Pedregal residents into wider spheres of interaction. However, local ritual wasalso focused on intimate daily life within rural households, and served to unite community members, emphasizinglocal identities in the face of the region’s increasing incorporation into the Chimú empire.

Este artículo investiga los rituales comunitarias y domésticos en la aldea de Pedregal, un sitio que pertenece al PeriodoIntermedio Tardío (A.D. 1000–1460) en el valle bajo del Jequetepeque, en la costa norte del Perú. Investigacionesarqueológicas en el 2006 identificaron rituales en varias escalas, desde las ofrendas pequeñas de maíz quemadodentro de las casas, hasta las fiestas comunitarias. Algunos ritos empleaban productos importados desde muy lejos dela comunidad, o daban referencia a las ceremonias públicas en centros élites como Farfán, lo cual incorporaba a loshabitantes de Pedregal en esferas de interacción más ámplias. Pero los ritos locales también se enfocaban en la vidacotidiana e íntima dentro de las casas rurales, y probablemente servían a integrar y unir los miembros de la comunidad,cosa que enfatizaba las identidades locales en el contexto de la incorporación de la región al imperio chimú.

Prehispanic regional centers in the ancient Andeswere foci for spectacular ritual pageantry that

served as an arena for elite competition and reinforcedreligious and political ideologies at the regional andstate levels (e.g. Bourget 2001; Chicoine 2010;Kembel 2001; Lau 2002; Moore 1996; Swenson2007; Uceda 2008). However, ancient Andean lifewas also permeated with smaller-scale ritual events

that took place in rural villages and households.Ethnographers alert us to the centrality of ritual inmodern Andean community life, including cere-monies that mark life-cycle events, agricultural festi-vals, or celebrations of local deities (Abercrombie1998; Allen 2002; Bourque 1995; Harris 1982;Isbell 1978), and continuing traditions of shamanichealing on the north coast (Bussman and Sharon

Ñawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology, Volume 33, Number 1, pp. 1–21. Copyright # 2013 Institute of Andean Studies. All rights reserved.

Robyn E. Cutright, Centre College, 600 W. Walnut St., Danville, KY 40422, [email protected]

1

mailto:[email protected]



2006; Joralemon and Sharon 1993). Given this stronghousehold-level ritual tradition, it is worth thinkingmore systematically about the social contexts of ritualin ancient Andean households and rural communities.One especially interesting question that might be

answered by investigating ritual at the household andvillage levels is how the ritual practices of rural, lower-class families related to dominant state and eliteideologies visible at regional centers. In ancientMesoamerica,where the relationship betweenhouseholdand state ritual is increasingly well studied, archaeologistssuggest that these overlapping systems “sometimes inter-acted harmoniously but often may have contributed asignificant amount of tension to the social environment”(Plunket 2002: 4). State, village, and household ritualsmay have referenced shared traditions, but addresseddifferent audiences, taken place on different scales andin different social and political contexts, and ofteninvolved very different kinds of practices and socialrelationships (Marcus 1998; Robin 2002).Redfield’s (1956) classic formulation distinguishes

between the “great tradition,” expressed throughhigh culture, elite ritual practice, and public cer-emonies, and the “little tradition,” evident in conser-vative folk culture. While this view has been usedoften, explicitly or implicitly, to conceptualize thedifferences between public and domestic rituals, ithas been criticized as overly dualistic (McAnany2002: 117) and for conceiving of domestic ritual asa watered-down version of public ritual, rather thanexploring it on its own terms. Another frameworksees public rituals as arenas in which state officialsand elites promote dominant ideologies that legiti-mize their claims to authority (Smith 2002: 94).According to Smith, domestic rituals have acomplex relationship with state rituals; they mayreflect the imposition or internalization of state ideol-ogies, express local responses or resistance, and in turninfluence state religion “through systems of interpene-trating knowledge” (Smith 2002: 95). This frame-work suggests that exploring the links betweenpublic ritual at the state level and popular ritual prac-tice at the village and household level will elucidatehow rural populations responded to and participatedin dominant state ideologies.

In the context of the Inka conquest of theCotahuasi Valley, Jennings (2003) suggests that theInka imposed dominant state religious ideology bytransforming one local ritual center, ending worshipat another locally important site, and curtailing thelocal practice of leaving painted tablets as offerings.In the case of the Cotahuasi, which initially stronglyresisted the Inka conquest, local ritual traditionsmay have been deemed too dangerous to state auth-ority to be allowed to continue under Inka rule(Jennings 2003: 454). At the same time, the Inkaleft other, less-threatening, local religious practicesintact, and local beliefs were probably characterizedby relative continuity despite the imposition of theInka state religion. This example shows that local reli-gious practice can be the focus of complex nego-tiations of state political strategies on one hand andlocal beliefs and identity on the other.Jennings (2003) focuses attention on offerings and

shrines across the Cotahuasi Valley ritual landscape.In one example of a study that specifically considersthe relationship between domestic ritual in rural vil-lages and public ritual at regional centers, Vaughn(2009) argues that, in the early Nasca village ofMarcaya, the sacred and the secular were not concep-tually separated, and ritually charged consumption offood and drink from polychrome vessels took placewithin all households. Ritual was limited to house-holds at Marcaya (Vaughn found no evidence forcommunal village ritual in extra-household spaces),but involved the consumption of ideologicallycharged polychrome ceramics probably obtainedfrom the regional center, Cahuachi. Vaughn (2009:175) suggests that the use of these ceramics in dom-estic ritual at Marcaya served as a powerful reminderof ideologies and public rituals directly associatedwith elites at Cahuachi.

Identifying Domestic Ritual on theNorth Coast

Despite its intense religious and social meaning, ritualcan be hard to identify in the archaeological record.However, Bell (1992) draws attention to the repetitive

Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology Volume 33, Number 1

2

nature of ritual performance as distinct from otherquotidian activities (McAnany 2002: 117).Archaeologists working in the Andes often signalrepeated practices that diverge from other daily tasksas related to household ritual. For example,Bermann and Estévez Castillo (1995) distinguishritual caches of bifacial blades, grinding stones, andfigurines in Formative period Bolivian householdson the basis of systematic differences from other con-texts of discard such as refuse pits. Such studies relyon identifying patterned material evidence thatdiverges from “non-ritual” household activities suchas food preparation or craft production. Given theinterpenetration of sacred and secular in the Andes,however, this approach probably seriously underesti-mates the scope of ritual practice in households.Along with repetitive practices, special ritual para-

phernalia can signal the context and content of house-hold ritual. Figurines were a common medium forritual practice in north-coast households during theMoche period (Cordy-Collins 2001; Johnson 2010;Ringberg 2008). Based on her work at a Moche agri-cultural village, Ciudad de Dios, Ringberg (2008)argues that figurines were a vehicle through whichMoche elites communicated social, moral, or religiousideals to a wider audience, including the residents ofrural villages. However, she also suggests that themedium of figurines was flexible enough that theyalso may have communicated messages which werepersonally important to commoners in addition todominant state ideology.In the subsequent Late Intermediate Period (LIP)

Lambayeque and Chimú cultures, figurines weresometimes included as grave goods but were not com-monly found in households. More common in theseLIP households were ritual offerings of diversematerials. Ritual offerings, including guinea pigs(cuy), figurines of gold, silver, or Spondylus dressedin elaborate textiles, Spondylus valves, textilebundles, and sacrificed humans have a long traditionin the Andes (Allen 2002; Bray 2009; Sandweiss andWing 1997; Van Valkenburg and Quilter 2008). Thetradition of ritual offerings continues to the present insome parts of the Andes. In her ethnography of ahighland village near Cuzco, Allen (2002) describes

how families made burnt offerings, or despachos.Ritually significant items such as seeds, incense,wool, and food were wrapped in cloth and burnedas a prelude to animal fertility rituals, as a responseto bad luck or illness, or in preparation for ajourney or other difficult task. These offerings,along with the coca and libations consumed by par-ticipants, were intended to feed the earth and othersacred places (Allen 2002: 129). In Allen’s account,despachos and other rituals were not static, butvaried according to individual intent and circum-stances. At Pedregal, archaeological evidence suggeststhat several different kinds of offerings were madewithin households, complemented by public ritualcentered on low platforms adjacent to the residentialarea.

Household and Community Ritualat Pedregal

Archaeological research at Pedregal has focused onchanging cuisine and household production in thecontext of Chimú conquest and control of theJequetepeque Valley (Cutright 2009, 2010);however, it is impossible to overlook evidence ofritual practice that took place in different contextson various scales at the site. In this article, Iexamine the ritual offerings within households andpublic feasting around the village’s two low platformsin order to reconstruct the social contexts of ritual at asmall LIP farming village as they relate to the widercultural and political setting.

Pedregal and the Jequetepeque Valley:Cultural and Historical Context

During the first half of the LIP (A.D. 1000–1300),the Jequetepeque Valley (Figure 1) was occupied bythe Lambayeque, a complex polity centered at thecoastal political and ceremonial site of Pacatnamú(Donnan and Cock 1997; Sapp 2011). Other eliteadministrative sites in the valley during this timeinclude Farfán (Mackey 2009, 2011), San José deMoro (Prieto 2010), Cabur (Sapp 2011), and the

Cutright: Household ofrendas and community feasts

3

middle valley border outpost of Ventanillas (Cutrightand Cervantes 2012; Cutright et al. 2012). Whilesome have argued that the Jequetepeque was con-trolled by an expansive Middle Sicán state centeredin the Lambayeque/La Leche valleys to the north(Castillo 2001; Prieto 2010), local variations inarchitecture, settlement patterns, and materialculture suggest a high level of indigenous autonomydespite cultural and economic ties with the north(Mackey 2009, 2011; Sapp 2011). Pedregal was firstoccupied during the preceding late Moche period,and by the Lambayeque period it was one of anumber of farming villages spread across the Pampade Faclo between Pacatnamú and Farfán.The Chimú state coalesced in the Moche Valley

around 900 A.D. and began to expand its politicalcontrol over neighboring valleys several centurieslater (Moore and Mackey 2008; Moseley and Day1982). By the early fourteenth century A.D., theChimú had conquered the Jequetepeque Valley tothe north in what locals later described to Spanishchroniclers as a bloody battle (Mackey 2009). TheChimú established a provincial administrative center

at Farfán to control movement and agricultural pro-duction in the valley (Keatinge and Conrad 1983;Mackey 1987, 2009). While Mackey (2009) hasdescribed Chimú control in the Jequetepeque asfairly direct, Swenson’s (2007) investigation of hinter-land ceremonial sites during the LIP suggests thatlocal elites manipulated imperial architecturalsymbols while maintaining a degree of politicalcontrol and autonomy. Along with the rest of theChimú empire, the Jequetepeque was subsequentlyconquered by the Inka around A.D. 1460. In orderto address how Chimú administration was experi-enced by the lower-class rural population, my disser-tation research (Cutright 2009) focused on Pedregal,a farming village less than 5 km southwest of Farfán(Figure 1).

Excavations at Pedregal

Pedregal is a 5-ha site on the north bank of the lowerJequetepeque River, at the edge of an escarpmentoverlooking the cultivated valley floor and adjacent

Figure 1. The lower Jequetepeque Valley, showing the locations of sites mentioned in the text (after Hecker and Hecker 1990).


4

to large prehispanic field systems. Research focusedon the 2.9-ha LIP village (Figure 2), which includeda public area consisting of rectangular enclosures, twolow platform mounds, an open public/cemetery space(Sectors B and C), and a residential area consisting ofsix rectangular agglutinated domestic compounds(Sector A). In 2006, I placed 3 × 3 m excavationunits in three of these compounds, as well as1 × 1 m test pits in other areas of the residential andpublic sectors (Figure 3; see Cutright 2009 for amore thorough discussion of excavations). Ratherthan uncovering broad areas of contemporaneoushousehold occupation, I wanted to compare samplesfrom several households and gauge change throughtime in household production, food preparation andconsumption, and storage at Pedregal.

In Sector A, each excavation unit cut through twodistinct LIP occupations one associated with surfacearchitecture and one earlier set of architectural fea-tures with a slightly different north-south orientation(Figure 4). In both occupations we found a series ofsuperimposed floors separated by fill rich in house-hold refuse. While I had hoped to compare pre-Chimú Lambayeque households with Chimú periodhouseholds, cultural and stylistic continuities duringthe LIP and into the Inka period made it difficultto securely link these two stratigraphically distinctoccupations to the transition from Lambayeque toChimú rule on the basis of artifacts or architecture.Paddle-stamped ollas and ring-base bowls bothappeared in the Jequetepeque Valley post-Moche(Swenson 2004) and continued through the Inkaperiod, while classic Imperial Chimú and Chimú-Inka forms such as aryballoid vessels and stirrup-spout blackware bottles (Mackey 2009) were rare atPedregal and other rural villages. However, oneclearly Chimú form, a flat-bottomed reduction-firedplate, was present in both the earlier and later occu-pations identified at Pedregal (Cutright 2009). Thisis consistent with radiocarbon dates placing muchof Pedregal’s domestic occupation in the Chimúperiod.Radiocarbon dates1 from Sector A (Table 1)

include an anomalously early middle Moche datefrom between the earliest floors in one residentialcompound; however, the sample was stratigraphi-cally associated with LIP ceramics and was probablya relic of an earlier Moche occupation still visible tothe north of the site. The other Sector A samples,maize cobs recovered from a plastered storage pitin Unit 6 (see Figure 2), date to the Chimúperiod in the late fourteenth to early fifteenth cen-turies. The storage pit itself is associated with theearlier of the two stratigraphically identifiedperiods, so ceramic and radiocarbon evidence bothalign to suggest that the earlier and later occupationsof Sector A fall after Chimú conquest of the valley.The other dates in Table 1 come from Platform 1construction materials, and suggest that constructionin the public sector began before Chimú arrival inA.D. 1320, and likely continued through the

Figure 2. The Late Intermediate Period occupation of Pedregalshowing 2006 excavations.


5

Chimú period (I discuss platform dates in greaterlength below). However, I believe that changes inhousehold activities from the earlier to the laterperiod reflect the strategies of elite administratorsand local residents in the context of Chimú imperi-alism. In order to investigate change through timein Pedregal households, then, I compared the arti-fact assemblages from these two occupations acrossSector A.My research showed that Pedregal residents felt

the effects of Chimú rule most strongly in intensi-fied production of staples like maize and cotton,although household and village activities were notstrongly reorganized (Cutright 2009, 2010). I also

Figure 3. Examples of excavation units in Sector A, showing cobble walls, internal subdivisions, plaster floors, and features such ashearths and storage pits.

Figure 4. West profile of Unit 2 in Sector A, showingdistinction between earlier and later occupation.


6

found evidence of ritual activities, such as offeringsand feasts, on the household and community scales.Because of the relatively small number of ritualofferings found across the site, it is difficult to tellwhether the frequency of certain kinds of activitieschanged through time, or how they might berelated to Chimú economic or administrative strat-egies. However, I argue here that a closer look atritual has the potential to further elucidate therelationship between Pedregal residents and thewider sociopolitical context of the JequetepequeValley.

Household Ritual at Pedregal

The most archaeologically visible form of domesticritual at Pedregal was the intentional placement ofofferings of maize, Spondylus, and textile bundleswithin houses. I found no figurines or other artifactsclearly manufactured specifically for ritual purposes indomestic contexts, nor did I identify any spaces setaside for ritual activities within households. Instead,ritual offerings took place within food preparationareas and other household spaces, often associatedwith episodes of construction or closing/abandon-ment (Table 2).

Maize Offerings. In the prehispanic Andes, maizewas an economic staple with strong political andreligious significance (Bray 2003a; Morris 1979;Staller 2010). Maize was a common funerary

offering in Moche (Gumerman 1994) andLambayeque (Cutright 2011) cemeteries in theJequetepeque. Gumerman (1994) has suggested thatlarger maize cobs with more rows of kernels werepreferentially selected for use in Moche burials at

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Pedregal

Sample Designation Material Provenience Contextual Information

14C Age(1 sigmarange) Calibrated Date (2 sigma range)

Pedregal 418(Beta242708)

Carbon Sector A Unit 2L. 10

Fill between floors 3and 4

1610BP ± 40

Cal A.D. 390–550

Pedregal 919(AA88401)

Maizecob

Sector B PP14 L. 10 Maize stalk layer inPlatform 1

766BP ± 34

Cal A.D. 1225–1314 (83%);Cal A.D. 1357–1381 (12%)


Maizecob

Sector A Unit 6L. 10 Feature H

Organic-rich fill inplastered storage pit

574BP ± 34

Cal A.D. 1324–1345 (8%);Cal A.D. 1388–1445 (87.4%)


Maizecob

Sector A Unit 6L. 10 Feature H

Organic-rich fill inplastered storage pit

514BP ± 35

Cal A.D. 1401–1462

Table 2. Maize and Spondylus offerings at Pedregal

Sector Area Unit Level Feature Context

Maize offerings

A 2 1 5 G In fill

A 2 1 6 F In fill

A 2 1 8 H On top of Floor 3before closing

A 2 4 9 T On top of Floor 3before closing

A 2 4 10 AR In fill

Sector Area Unit Feature Level Context

Spondylus offerings

A 4 3 0 Surface On top of fill atclosing or post-abandonment

A 4 3 A 1 Below surface, inprepared basin withNectandra seeds

A 2 1 C 1 On top of banquetabefore floorconstruction

A 2 1 C 1 On top of banquetabefore floorconstruction

B 4 PP21 0 1 Surface


7

Pacatnamú, compared to those deposited ashousehold trash. In Lambayeque-period burials atFarfán, I found no evidence for preferentialselection of particular cobs, but maize was a highlyubiquitous funerary offering. I have argued(Cutright 2011: 89–90) that maize wasoverrepresented in these offerings compared tohousehold food preparation contexts, and may havebeen regarded as an especially appropriate food toplace in burials. Small offerings of burnt maize cobsand kernels are often found in domestic contexts atother LIP sites on the north coast (e.g. Cutrightand Cervantes 2012).Maize offerings, conducted inside kitchens and

other household spaces and likely open only to alimited number of participants, represent the smal-lest scale of ritual acts visible at Pedregal. They con-sisted of discrete features of highly charred maizecobs and kernels in household fill (Figure 5). Inmany cases, at least one complete cob withkernels was present, differentiating these intention-ally burnt offerings from hearths or ashy depositscontaining accidentally burned seeds or incomple-tely burnt maize cobs, stalks, and other fuel.Maize offerings were common in Compound 2, inthe food production areas uncovered in Units 1and 4 (Table 2). I did not observe a statistically sig-nificant difference in the number of rows betweencobs from ritual and other contexts (although thesample of whole cobs from offerings was small),

so I have no evidence that certain kinds of maizewere specially selected for these offerings. Instead,since maize was one of the most ubiquitous plantspecies in Pedregal households, and one whoseproduction intensified over the course of theLIP (Cutright 2009), residents were using acommon staple plant in ritually charged householdcontexts.

Spondylus Offerings. Prehispanic Andean cultureshave attached ritual significance to Spondylus sincethe Early Horizon, but during the LIP Spondylususe in iconography and rituals intensified (Martin2001). The Chimú in particular imported largequantities of Spondylus from the warm waters offEcuador, and Spondylus occupied an importantplace in Chimú royal ritual and iconography(Cordy-Collins 1990; Pillsbury 1996). In the LIP,Spondylus valves were burnt, powdered, and interredwhole or as figurines or ornaments in large ritualcaches and burials (Martin 2001: 81) at regionallyimportant centers like Farfán (Mackey and Jaúregui2001) and Túcume (Narváez 1995). Spondylusofferings were left in lower-class Chimú householdsat Chan Chan (Topic 1982: 158), and the practiceseems to have persisted into the colonial period aswell (Van Valkenburg and Quilter 2008). In boththese latter cases, offerings were found inhouseholds, in contrast to the ritual and funerarysettings of Spondylus use at elite centers.At Pedregal, two whole Spondylus valves were inten-

tionally placed as an offering on top of a banqueta inCompound 2, Unit 1, in a room associated with foodpreparation (Table 2). After the offering was placed,residents covered the banqueta with a preparedfloor. A more elaborate offering of Spondylus frag-ments and pierced Nectandra seeds was placed inthe corner of a large room in Compound 4, Unit 3at the end of the sequence of occupation. This offer-ing had been placed in a small (∼30 × 30 cm),specially prepared plastered basin (Figure 6). Twostratigraphically separate offering episodes wereobserved, each consisting of a small cache ofNectandra seeds and broken, weathered Spondyluspieces. A thin layer of sterile, water-hardenedFigure 5. Profile of a burnt maize offering in Sector A, Unit 1.


8

sediment (perhaps indicating that the first offeringwas exposed for a time to the elements?) separatedthe episodes. Based on their location near thesurface, above the most recent floor of the compound,it is likely that these materials were left as closing orpost-abandonment offerings.These offerings were composed entirely of non-

local elements: Spondylus, a warm-water shellimported from Ecuador, and Nectandra seeds, froma tree that grows in the eastern Andean slopes andAmazonian lowlands. Both Nectandra and Spondylusare part of wider north coast ritual traditions.Pierced seeds of the Nectandra plant are commonlyfound in Chimú and Chimú-Inka burial contexts atsites like Farfán, Chan Chan, and Huaca de la Luna(Mackey and Jaúregui 2001; Montoya 2004).According to Montoya (2004), these seeds functionas a stimulant and blood coagulant, and could havebeen part of human sacrifice rituals. Wider traditionsof Spondylus offerings in household kitchens linkedPedregal residents to Chimú households in theMoche Valley, and persisted into colonial settings.

While these offerings were placed in intimate house-hold spaces, they connected residents at a rural, pro-vincial village to elite ceremonies at large centers,and to the long-distance trade networks that suppliedSpondylus to the central Andes.

Hair Offerings. Textile-wrapped bundles of hairwere also left as ritual offerings in one Pedregalhousehold (Figure 7). Two such bundles wereplaced next to each other under a banqueta inCompound 5, on top of a feature cut into sterilesubsoil. They appear to be solid bundles of long,reddish brown human hair, measuringapproximately 50 × 30 × 10 cm. Simple cottontextiles were wrapped around the hair andknotted, and one of the bundles was secured witha sliver of wood pushed through the knot like apin. No other artifacts were associated with thesetwo bundles.Textile-wrapped bundles containing Nectandra

seeds (e.g. Montoya 2004) or other materials(Sandweiss 1992) have been reported from other

Figure 6. Closing offering ofSpondylus valves and piercedNectandra seeds in Sector A,Unit 3.


9

sites, but I have found no references to textile-wrapped hair bundles similar to these. The burialof these hair offerings could have been related tothe construction of the banqueta above them, orto rituals related to life-cycle ceremonies or otheractivities of the house occupants. Unlike the otherofferings discussed here, these bundles represent aone-time offering of locally produced and intenselypersonal materials placed in an intimate householdspace.

Community Ritual at Pedregal

In addition to small-scale ritual, centered on maize,Spondylus, and hair offerings in houses, Pedregal resi-dents also participated in rituals on the communityscale. Some of these rituals undoubtedly centeredon the cemeteries within the village (Figure 2);however, these cemeteries have been extensively

looted and limited test excavations uncovered nointact burials (Cutright 2009). Other ritual activitieswere focused on the two low-platform mounds atthe site. In this section, I suggest that the constructionof the mounds was a community task, and feastingand burial rituals took place on and around themounds throughout the LIP.

Platform Construction. Two low-platform moundswere built to the north of the LIP residential area(Figure 2). Given the small size of these mounds,village residents easily would have been able toorganize construction on a community level, usingcrop by-products like maize stalks and locallyprepared adobes and fill. Platform 1’s stratigraphy(Figure 8) reveals levels of relatively clean fillinterspersed with layers of maize stalks, and cappedwith a sequence of prepared floors. Stratigraphicdifferences in different parts of the platform showthat each episode of fill was relatively localized, andnot standardized as to content, suggesting manysmall-scale construction events rather than onelarge coordinated effort. Platform 2 was also builtand remodeled in a series of episodes thatemployed adobes and fill (Figure 9). As the plan-view drawing in Figure 9 shows, these remodelingepisodes added new outer walls to the platform andwere perhaps intended to increase the size of theplatform or change the way in which it was used.Utilitarian late Moche and Lambayeque-style sherdswere common in fill from both platforms, but noChimú-style blackware was present (Cutright2009). A calibrated radiocarbon date on a maizestalk from the Platform 1 construction fill(Table 1) has an 83 percent probability of fallingwithin the late Lambayeque occupation of thevalley (but a smaller probability of dating just afterChimú arrival). Adobes at Pedregal correspondmost closely to McClelland’s “Terminal Chimú”flat-rectangular and flat-bottomed ovoid types(1986: 28).2 This evidence supports a lateLambayeque period (pre-Chimú conquest)construction date for the Pedregal mounds;however, artifacts recovered from the surface of the

Figure 7. Hair-bundle offerings from Sector A, PP 29.


10

platforms show that they continued to be utilizedinto the Chimú period.These platforms were used at least in part as mortu-

ary structures. The platforms were heavily looted, butsurface collections included fragments of Chimú fine-ware vessels, such as mold-made reduction firedblackware with piel de ganso and wave motifs, finelywoven and decorated textiles, and personal adorn-ments such as beads and a feathered headband(Figure 10). It seems that at least one individualburied in Platform 2 was accorded a relatively elabor-ate burial that referenced Imperial Chimú elite style,suggesting that even rural village elites drew on (andhad access to) artifacts in the state style.

Platforms and Public Areas as Loci of Feasting.Over the last 20 years, archaeologists haveincreasingly focused attention on feasting as animportant sociopolitical dynamic in ancient societies(Bray 2003b; Dietler and Hayden 2001; Gumerman1997; Hayden 2001; Hayden and Villeneuve 2011;

Wiessner and Schiefenhövel 1996). Feasts, wherelarge quantities of food and drink were consumed inspecial communal meals, could emphasizecommunity solidarity but also reinforce differencesin wealth or status and act as arenas for politicalcompetition phrased in idioms of hospitality. In theAndes, feasts provided an important link betweenroyal or community ancestors and the living(Hastorf 2003; Lau 2002; Ramirez 2005; Sillar1992), allowed hosts to mobilize labor through asystem of reciprocal obligations (Morris 1979), andemphasized elite or state power through competitivegenerosity and hospitality (Bray 2003a; Gero 1992).On the basis of his work at Marcaya, in the Nascaregion, Vaughn (2009) shows that feasts wereimportant in the political and ritual lives even ofsmall, non-elite communities.Common archaeological indicators of feasts include

larger than average serving and cooking vessels, highproportions of serving vessels compared to food prep-aration vessels, and foods that outstrip those served at

Figure 8. Platform 1 stratigraphy.


11

everyday meals in terms of quality and quantity, orinclude rare, expensive, or difficult to prepareingredients (Blitz 1993; Dietler 2001; Goody 1982;Junker 1998). Hastorf (2003) proposes that, in theprehispanic Andes, everyday foods became luxuryfoods when served in large quantities in specialsocial contexts. Along these lines, Gumerman(2010) uses large vessels for preparing and servingchicha and large hearths as evidence for work-partyand funerary feasting among the Moche. Meat,especially camelid meat, was an important com-ponent of Andean feasts and elite meals. Bray’s(2003a) research shows that Inka imperial ceramicassemblages emphasized meat consumption, andGumerman (2002) has highlighted the connectionbetween camelid consumption and elite status atPacatnamú, in the Jequetepeque Valley. Manyresearchers (e.g. Bray 2003a; Jennings and Bowser2008; Morris 1979) have pointed out that chicha con-sumption was a central component of Andean feasts.Andean feasts, then, should be signaled by largervessels and a greater emphasis on serving chicha and

Figure 9. Photograph and drawing showing three constructionepisodes of Platform 2 in plan view.

Figure 10. Artifacts recoveredfrom looted burials in Platform 2:shell beads, pyroengraved gourdwith fish motif, stone bead withreversible human head, andfeathered headband.


12

high-status foods such as meat in comparison to dom-estic meals.In order to investigate the potential that the feasting

took place near the platforms, I compared the faunal,botanical, and ceramic assemblages from Sector A andSector B. It was not possible to correlate specific plat-form strata with specific occupations of the residentialzone. Instead, I compared the aggregate assemblages,assuming that assemblages from Sector A representedan average of all the meals prepared and consumed inPedregal households. If the Sector B assemblages dif-fered from Sector A in ways that fit the feasting modeldescribed above, then this would suggest that feastingtook place in the area surrounding the platforms.

Faunal Evidence for Feasting at Pedregal.According to the discussion above, one differencebetween feasts and daily meals may have been theiremphasis on large quantities of camelid meat.Feasting refuse thus should contain higherproportions of camelid compared to other meatsources such as guinea pig.Overall, the faunal assemblage at Pedregal was

highly fragmented but relatively well preserved.Faunal remains were identified by species andelement at the ARQUEOBIOS lab in Trujillo,Peru, and quantified by the number of identifiablespecimens (NISP) and minimum number of individ-uals (MNI). Taphonomy and age were also recorded,although the sample of aged elements was not largeenough to make detailed comparisons of the twosectors. Shellfish outnumbered all other faunal cat-egories at Pedregal and were excluded from the follow-ing analysis (see Cutright 2009 and 2010 for a moredetailed discussion of subsistence remains). Fish, mostnotably anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) and suco(Paralonchurus peruanus), made up 40 percent ofthe faunal assemblage (total NISP = 3,121). Birds,reptiles, and other/unidentified species represented5 percent of the assemblage. Mammals, includingguinea pig (Cavia porcellus), dog (Canis lupus famil-iaris), and camelids (Lama sp.), represented 55percent of the Pedregal faunal assemblage.Figure 11 compares the faunal assemblages (exclud-

ing fish) of Sectors A and B. Camelid elements made

up a greater proportion of the Sector B assemblagecompared to the assemblage from Sector A. In fact,camelid elements made up nearly 70 percent of theSector B assemblage, and only about 45 percent ofthe faunal assemblage from Sector A. Some portionsof the animal carcass offer more meat than others,and so it is possible to identify higher and lowerquality cuts of animals; for camelids, higher qualitycuts usually include neck, trunk, and sternum areas,while lower limbs and tails are bonier and offer lessmeat (Aldenderfer 1998). Feasting assemblagesmight be further distinguished from domestic assem-blages since feasts tended to use higher quality cuts ofmeat compared to daily meals, and so feasting assem-blages should contain larger proportions of skeletalelements from choice cuts. Figure 12 compares therepresentation of camelid elements from differentparts of the body (referred to as meat packets afterAldenderfer 1998) in the residential (Sector A) andpublic (Sector B) areas of the site. Elements fromthe trunk packet made up a greater proportion ofthe Sector B assemblage, while head elements weremore common in Sector A. This comparison revealsthat the camelid assemblage in Sector B shows slightlymore emphasis on higher quality cuts of camelid ascompared to Sector A. Overall, faunal evidence

Figure 11. Camelid elements as a proportion of faunalassemblages from domestic (Sector A) and public (Sector B)contexts.


13

suggests that, while camelid meat seems to have beena part of daily meals in Sector A, higher quality cuts ofcamelid were preferentially consumed around theplatforms in Sector B, possibly as part of feasts.

Ceramic Evidence for Feasting at Pedregal. Iffeasting took place in Sector B, we would expect tosee a greater focus on vessels related to serving andchicha consumption than in Sector A, which shouldhave an assemblage more focused on foodpreparation. Cooking vessels (ollas) with round basesand low carinated rims did in fact make up asignificantly greater proportion of the Sector Avessel assemblage (Figure 13). Chicha would havebeen served in jars, which were narrow-rimmedvessels with tall necks. Jars made up a significantlygreater proportion of the vessel assemblage in SectorB, which supports the feasting scenario. Servingvessels at Pedregal consisted of ring-based bowls andflat-bottomed plates, both wide-mouthed andappropriate for serving stews or meat. Serving vesselsmade up a slightly larger proportion of theassemblage in Sector A, contrary to what would beexpected if feasts took place around the platforms inSector B. Large, thick-walled storage and chicha-preparation vessels (tinajas) were slightly less

common in Sector B, but the difference is notstatistically significant.Feasts prepared for and served to large groups of

people might require larger vessels on average, sowe might expect to see ollas or serving vesselswith wider rim diameters in Sector B. In fact, a t-test shows a significant difference in mean olla,bowl, and jar rim diameter between Sector A andB (Table 3). Vessels in Sector B, on average, werelarger; however, the mean olla rim diameter only

Figure 12. Distribution of camelid elements by meat packets from domestic (Sector A) and public (Sector B) contexts. Elementsrecovered at Pedregal are shaded.

Figure 13. Comparison of vessel form proportions fromdomestic (Sector A) and public (Sector B) contexts.


14

differs by about 1 cm, while the mean bowl rimdiameter is about 2 cm larger in Sector B thanSector A. These differences, while significant, arefairly small and do not necessarily represent meaning-ful (or even noticeable) differences in vessel use orcapacity. The mean jar diameter, however, differedby almost 4 cm between the two sectors, whichmay represent a more meaningful difference invessel size. Overall, the ceramic assemblage providesonly weak evidence for an emphasis on food anddrink consumption around the platforms in Sector B.

Botanical Evidence for Feasting at Pedregal. Thefocus on jars in the ceramic assemblage of Sector Bpoints towards a focus on serving and consumingliquids like chicha, rather than food preparation andprocessing activities. A comparison of the botanicalassemblages from the two sectors also supports thisidea. Sector A’s botanical assemblage shows a muchstronger focus on maize processing than SectorB. Maize cobs and kernels make up only 7.8percent of the Sector B botanical assemblage ascompared to 21 percent in Sector A; a chi-squaretest shows that this difference is very significant(χ2 = 421.72, p < 0.0005). If maize was consumedin Sector B, it was likely in the form of chicha.Maize for chicha could have been processed andprepared in Sector A along with maize for dailymeals, resulting in the clear focus on maizeprocessing remains in Sector A as well as therelatively larger jar diameter and greater proportion

of jars discarded in Sector B. Overall, then, there issome evidence for a patterned difference in the foodconsumed in the domestic and public sectors of thesite which may indicate that feasts took place on oraround the platforms in Sector B.

The Social Organization of Feasting at Pedregal. Iffeasting did take place in Sector B, what was the socialcontext of these feasts? Were these exclusionaryceremonies designed to reinforce differencesbetween elite and commoner populations or werethey communal rites aimed towards communityintegration? One way to approach the nature offeasting at Pedregal is by looking at the associatedarchitecture. As Moore (1996) points out,architecture, and particularly public architecture, isbuilt according to particular social, political, andideological priorities, and so examining how peoplemoved through and experienced particulararchitectural configurations can lead us to thinkabout the kinds of interactions and activities thatwould have been possible in particular spaces.Chimú compounds, whether ciudadelas at Chan

Chan or administrative compounds in the provinces,were surrounded by high walls that limited visibility.Access to the interior was restricted by narrow, baffledentrances and winding corridors (Moore 1996,2003). Earlier Lambayeque compounds atPacatnamú reflected a similar interest in restrictedaccess and visibility, featuring high-walled courtyardswith narrow pilastered doorways (Donnan 1986;Sapp 2011), but also incorporated large adobehuacas with ramps and smaller flanking platforms.The LIP hinterland ceremonial sites described bySwenson (2007) encompass a wide variety of architec-tural forms, including hillside terraces, ramps, plat-forms, and rectangular cobble compounds withinternal subdivisions that seem to reference character-istic Chimú architectural canons. Swenson (2007:76–78) points out that baffled entries and indirectaccess are common features of this ceremonial archi-tecture, although some sites also contain spacesappropriate for larger and more inclusive ceremonies.Pedregal’s public architecture contrasts with pat-

terns of restricted access and visibility common at

Table 3. Comparison of mean vessel rim diameters in domestic(Sector A) and public (Sector B) contexts

Sector A Sector B

Form n

Mean RimDiameter(cm) n

Mean RimDiameter(cm) t-test

Olla 423 10.74 135 11.63 t = 3.279,p = 0.001

Bowl 173 19.20 96 21.15 t = 2.707,p = 0.007

Jar 80 12.95 138 16.64 t = 3.990,p < 0.0005


15

larger LIP centers. A large, rectangular, cobble com-pound situated north of the platforms (Sector C inFigure 2) lacks internal subdivisions and extendssouth to partially delimit the platforms in SectorB. A modern airstrip has disturbed the southernboundary of this compound, but the stratigraphyhints that the platforms were constructed after theSector C compound wall. There is no evidence thataccess to or visibility of activities taking placearound the platforms in Sector B would have beenrestricted from people in Sector A. Instead, thehouses in Sector A are separated by an open areawith evidence of intensive cotton processing andother domestic activities to the west, and a cemeteryto the east. The low platforms would have providedeffective stages for public rituals, but there were noseparate enclosed spaces for more private ceremonies.The whole community could have participated in thefeasts and other rituals that took place in Sector B,which means that ritual activities may have beenaimed at community integration as opposed to com-petitive exclusion. This view is supported by the evi-dence for small-scale, repeated platform constructionevents, which could have been the result of collabor-ation among community members. However, evi-dence of high-status looted burials does indicatethat some activities around the platforms wererelated to displays of social inequality.

Discussion

By examining household and community rituals atPedregal, I hope to place this small village in thewider political landscape of the Jequetepeque and toexplore how rural populations responded to and par-ticipated in dominant state ideologies. At both thevillage and household levels, Pedregal rituals sharedin wider traditions yet reinforced local autonomyand community integration.Large ceremonial sites such as Pacatnamú and

Farfán served as foci for the highest level of publicritual in the Jequetepeque. At Pacatnamú, evidencefrom excavations and a tapestry-weave textile(Donnan 1986) suggest that ceremonies involving a

central figure seated on a dais, dancers, weavers, andcamelid sacrifice took place in the plazas of huaca com-pounds. At Farfán, compounds contained ritual plat-forms and plazas and high-status burials accompaniedby large quantities of reduction-fired blackware instate styles, camelid sacrifices, and caches of Spondylus(Mackey and Jaúregui 2001). The ceremonies thattook place at Pacatnamú and Farfán are likely to haveexcluded the majority of Jequetepeque Valley residents.The high perimeter walls and restricted internal spaceswould not have permitted large audiences to attendceremonies inside the compounds, and the finelywoven textiles and fine blackware vessels related tothese activities suggest participation by elites and statediplomats, not local farmers.Elements of this same ritual canon, however, were

referenced by local elites at hinterland ceremonialsites (Swenson 2007) and at farming villages likePedregal. Ceremonies at Pedregal employed somefine blackware vessels and took place in public archi-tecture that echoed that of Pacatnamú and Farfán,although on a reduced scale. Pedregal residents par-ticipated in a wider, shared ritual tradition, even ifthey did not attend ceremonies at the largest elitesites in the valley. The presence of exotic goods likeSpondylus and Nectandra in household offerings indi-cates that Pedregal residents were involved in regionalspheres of interaction and trade in special-purposegoods, whether they obtained these items directlyfrom long-distance traders or indirectly via local con-tacts. There is no evidence that ritual activities inPedregal households and in the community as awhole were exclusionary, nor that they served toemphasize differences among households. Rather,repeated household offering rituals, platform con-struction, and feasts were probably part of a cycle ofritual activity that promoted community integration.These ritual activities also may have reinforced local

continuity and autonomy during Chimú occupationof the valley. Swenson (2007) argues that the varietyof architectural configurations at Jequetepeque hinter-land sites emulate Chimú forms but also incorporatelocal forms and continuity with past architectural tra-ditions, allowing local elites to draw on the Chimú tra-dition while maintaining local autonomy in ritual


16

practice. Pedregal’s public architecture combines a rec-tangular cobble enclosure that resembles Chimú andLambayeque rectangular compounds with two low plat-forms in the earlier local huaca tradition. In thesespaces, Pedregal residents were able to incorporateelements of state architecture, local traditions, and com-munity-focused feasts. Similarly, within households,Pedregal residents participated in a shared ritual tra-dition that echoed, but did not replicate exactly,public ceremonies at elite sites. Some rituals employedintimate, everyday items, such as maize, plainweave tex-tiles, and human hair, but others incorporated exotictrade goods such as Spondylus and Nectandra seedsinto intimate household contexts and, probably, attrib-uted to these offerings intensely local meanings. Thusdomestic ritual drew on, but did not simply replicate,wider north coast ritual traditions.

Conclusion

Ritual at Pedregal took place on different spatial scalesand temporal cycles and involved different audiences.Maize offerings represent the smallest scale, since theyconsisted of only a few ears of corn, which were burntand placed in a small internal space like a kitchen.The audience for a ritual like this would have beenlimited to only a few people, probably members ofthe same family, and the presence of multiple maizeofferings in the same compound shows that theywere repeated with some frequency. Other ritualofferings, such as the hair bundles, were also con-ducted in restricted internal spaces, probably to rela-tively small audiences, but may have been much lessfrequent than maize offerings. At the village level,the residents of the Pedregal community participatedin feasts around low platforms that were constructedby community members as a series of small-scale,repetitive events. The use of maize stalks to stabilizefill layers suggests that platform construction mayhave been a seasonal activity, as stalks would be avail-able only during the maize harvest.Investigating ritual at Pedregal, then, reveals the

varied rhythms of family and community life in anLIP farming village. Local ritual drew on wider

belief systems and architectural canons, emphasizingregional interdependence and dominant state ideol-ogies on display at regional centers such as Farfán.However, by relying on local labor and resources,and by taking place in intimate household and unrest-ricted village spaces, domestic ritual practice alsomaintained a focus on household autonomy andcommunity integration in the face of increasingdemands by these regional centers on the labor andproduction of rural communities.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on dissertation research conducted atPedregal in 2006, approved by Resolución 804/INC andsupported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological Research (grant 7413), a FulbrightCommission IIE grant, and an InternationalDissertation Research Fellowship from the SocialScience Research Council. Earlier versions of thearticle were presented at the Society for AmericanArchaeology meetings in 2010 and the MidwestConference on Andean and Amazonian Archaeologyand Ethnohistory in 2009. Arizona radiocarbon dateswere funded by SSHRC Research Grant 410-2007-1111 to Michael Blake and Bruce Benz. Thanks toParker VanValkenburgh for information about ritual atMagdalena de Cao and to Gabriela Cervantes andJorge Terrones for thoughtful observations in the field.Thanks also to Jerry Moore and anonymous reviewersfor helpful comments during the review process. Allerrors of fact or interpretation remain my own.

Notes

1. Arizona radiocarbon dates (those with designationsbeginning with AA) were provided by MichaelBlake and Bruce Benz as part of their wider studyof maize in the Americas (Blake et al. 2012). Dateswere calibrated by OxCal (http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk)version 4.1.5 using the Southern Hemisphere curve 04.

2. For McClelland (1986), as for the rest of the contribu-tors to the first volume of the Pacatnamú papers(Donnan and Cock 1986), Pacatnamú was occupiedin the Chimú period and was an important ritual andpilgrimage center. Subsequent examination of the


17

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk







material and chronological revisions now placePacatnamú’s occupation in the Lambayeque period(Donnan 1997). Thus we can infer that McClelland’s“Terminal Chimú” period corresponds to the lastLambayeque constructions at the site, before its aban-donment at the time of Chimú arrival in the valley.

References Cited

Abercrombie, Thomas1998 Pathways of memory and power: ethnography and

history among an Andean people. University ofWisconsin Press, Madison.

Aldenderfer, Mark S.1998 Montane foragers: Asana and the south-central

Andean archaic. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.Allen, Catherine J.2002 The hold life has: coca and cultural identity in an

Andean community. 2nd ed. SmithsonianBooks, New York.

Bell, Catherine1992 Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford University

Press, New York.Bermann, Marc P., and José Estévez Castillo1995 Domestic artifact assemblages and ritual activities

in the Bolivian Formative. Journal of FieldArchaeology 22(4): 389–398.

Blake, Michael, Bruce Benz, Nicholas Jakobsen,Ryan Wallace, Sue Formosa, Kisha Supernant,Diana Moreiras, and Alex Wong2012 Ancientmaizemap,Version 1.1: an online database

andmapping program for studying the archaeologyof maize in the Americas. Electronic document,http://en.ancientmaize.com. Laboratory ofArchaeology, University of B.C., Vancouver(Accessed June 13, 2012).

Blitz, John H.1993 Big pots for big shots: feasting and storage in a

Mississippian community. American Antiquity58(1): 80–96.

Bourget, Steve2001 Rituals of sacrifice: its practice at Huaca de la

Luna and its representations in Moche iconogra-phy. InMoche art and archaeology in Ancient Peru,edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 89–110. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven.

Bourque, Nicole1995 Developing people and plants: life-cycle and agri-

cultural festivals in the Andes. Ethnology 34(1):75–87.

Bray, Tamara L.2003a Inka pottery as culinary equipment: food, feast-

ing, and gender in imperial state design. LatinAmerican Antiquity 14(1): 3–38.

Bray, Tamara L. (editor)2003b The archaeology and politics of food and feasting in

early states and empires. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

2009 An archaeological perspective on the Andeanconcept of Camaquen: thinking through latepre-Columbian ofrendas and huacas. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 19(3): 357–366.

Bussman, Rainer, and Douglas Sharon2006 Traditional medicinal plant use in Loja Province,

Southern Ecuador. Journal of Ethnobiology andEthnomedicine 2: 44.

Castillo, Luis Jaime2001 The last of the Mochicas: a view from the

Jequetepeque Valley. In Moche art and archaeol-ogy, edited by J. Pillsbury, pp. 307–332.National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

Chicoine, David2010 Elite strategies and ritual settings in coastal

Peru during the 1st millennium B.C. InComparative perspectives on the archaeology ofcoastal South America, edited byRobyn E. CutrightEnrique López-Hurtado, andAlexander Martin. University of PittsburghMemoirs in Latin American Archaeology,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Cordy-Collins, Alana1990 Fonga Sigde, shell purveyor to the Chimú kings.

In The northern dynasties: kingship and statecraft inChimor, edited by Michael Moseley andAlana Cordy-Collins, pp. 393–417. DumbartonOaks Research Library and Collection,Washington, D.C.

2001 Labretted ladies: foreign women in northernMoche and Lambayeque art. In Moche artand archaeology in ancient Peru, edited byJoanne Pillsbury, pp. 247–257. National Galleryof Art, Washington, D.C.

Cutright, Robyn E.2009 Between the kitchen and the state: domestic practice

and Chimú expansion in the Jequetepeque Valley,Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

2010 Food, family, and empire: relating political anddomestic change in the Jequetepeque hinter-land/Comida, familia, e imperio: relacionandocambios políticos y domésticos en la periferia


18

http://en.ancientmaize.com





del Jequetepeque. In Comparative perspectives onthe archaeology of coastal South America, edited byRobyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-Hurtado andAlexander Martin, pp. 27–44. Center forComparative Archaeology, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

2011 Food for the dead, cuisine of the living: Mortuaryfood offerings from the JequetepequeValley, Perú. In From state to empire in the prehis-toric Jequetepeque Valley, Peru, edited byColleen Zori and Ilana Johnson, pp. 83–92.British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 2310. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Cutright, Robyn E., and Gabriela Cervantes Quequezana2012 Informe de investigaciones temporada 2011 proyecto

de investigación arqueológica Ventanillas. Reportsubmitted to the Ministry of Culture, Lima,Peru.

Cutright, Robyn E., John Rucker, Billy Spradlin, andGabriela Cervantes Quequezana2012 Coastal politics in the Middle Valley: Ventanillas

as a Lambayeque political center in the MiddleJequetepeque Valley, Perú. Poster presented atthe 76th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.

Dietler, Michael2001 Theorizing the feast: rituals of consumption,

commensal politics, and power in African con-texts. In Feasts: archaeological and ethnographicperspectives on food, politics, and power, edited byMichael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 65–114.Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

Dietler, Michael, and Brian Hayden (editors)2001 Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives

on food, politics, and power. Smithsonian,Washington, D.C.

Donnan, Christopher1986 The Huaca I complex. In The Pacatnamú papers,

Vol. 1, edited by Christopher Donnan andGuillermo Cock, pp. 63–84. University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

1997 Introduction. In The Pacatnamú papers, Vol. 2,edited by Christopher Donnan andGuillermo Cock, pp. 9–16. University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

Donnan, Christopher, and Guillermo Cock (editors)1986 The Pacatnamú Papers, Vol. 1. University of

California, Los Angeles.1997 The Pacatnamú papers, Vol. 2: the Moche

occupation. University of California, Los Angeles.Gero, Joan1992 Feasts and females: gender ideology and political

meals in the Andes. Norwegian ArchaeologicalReview 25(1): 15–30.

Goody, Jack1982 Cooking, cuisine, and class. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.Gumerman, George, IV1994 Corn for the dead: The significance of Zea mays in

Moche burial offerings. In Corn and culture in theprehistoric new world, edited by Sissel Johannessenand Christine Hastorf, pp. 399–410. WestviewPress, Boulder, Colorado.

1997 Food and complex societies. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 4(2): 105–139.

2002 Llama power and empowered fishermen: foodand power at Pacatnamú, Peru. In The dynamicsof power, edited by Maria O’Donovan, pp.238–256. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, Occasional Paper 30, SouthernIllinois University, Carbondale.

2010 Big hearths and big pots: Moche feasting on theNorth Coast of Peru. In Inside ancient kitchens,edited by Elizabeth Klarich, pp. 111–132.University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Harris, Olivia1982 The dead and the devils among the Bolivian Laymi.

In Death and the regeneration of life, edited byMaurice Bloch and John Parry, pp. 45–73.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hastorf, Christine2003 Andean luxury foods: special food for the ancestors,

the deities and the elite. Antiquity 77(297): 110–119.Hayden, Brian2001 Fabulous feasts: a prolegomenon to the impor-

tance of feasting. In Feasts: archaeological and eth-nographic perspectives on food, politics, and power,edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden,pp. 23–64. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

Hayden, Brian, and Suzanne Villeneuve2011 A century of feasting studies. Annual Review of

Anthropology 40: 433–449.Hecker, Wolfgang, and Giesela Hecker1990 Ruinas, caminos y sistemas de irrigación prehispánicos

en la provincia de Pacasmayo, Peru. PatrimonioArqueológico Zona Norte/3. Instituto Departamentalde Cultura-La Libertad, Trujillo, Peru.

Isbell, Billie Jean1978 To defend ourselves: ecology and ritual in an Andean

village. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Jennings, Justin2003 Inca imperialism, ritual change, and cosmological

continuity in the Cotahuasi Valley of Peru. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 59(4): 433–462.


19

Jennings, Justin, and Brenda Bowser (editors)2008 Drink, power, and society in the Andes. University

Press of Florida, Gainesville.Johnson, Ilana2010 Households and social organization at the Late

Moche period site of Pampa Grande, Peru. Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of California, Los Angeles.

Joralemon, Donald, and Douglas Sharon1993 Sorcery and shamanism: curanderos and clients in

Northern Peru. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.

Junker, Laura L.1998 Integrating history and archaeology in the study

of contact period Philippine chiefdoms.International Journal of Historical Archaeology2(4): 291–320.

Keatinge, Richard W., and Geoffrey W. Conrad1983 Imperialist expansion in Peruvian prehistory:

Chimú administration of a conquered territory.Journal of Field Archaeology 10(3): 255–283.

Kembel, Silvia2001 Architectural sequence and chronology at Chavín de

Huántar, Perú. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropological Sciences, Stanford University,Stanford, CA.

Lau, George2002 Feasting and ancestor veneration at Chinchawas,

North Highlands of Ancash, Peru. LatinAmerican Antiquity 13(3): 279–304.

Mackey, Carol J.1987 Chimú administration in the provinces. In The

origins and development of the Andean state,edited by Jonathan Haas, Thomas Pozorski, andShelia Pozorski, pp. 121–129. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.

2009 Chimú statecraft in the provinces. In Andeancivilization: a tribute to Michael E. Moseley,edited by Joyce Marcus, Charles Stanish, andPatrick R. Williams, pp. 325–349. CotsenInstitute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

2011 The persistence of Lambayeque ethnicidentity: the perspective from the JequetepequeValley, Peru. In From state to empire inthe prehistoric Jequetepeque Valley, Peru, edited byColleen Zori and Ilana Johnson, pp. 149–168.British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 2310. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Mackey, Carol J., and Cesar Jaúregui2001 Informe preliminar del Año 2001, Proyecto

Arqueológico Farfán. Report submitted to theInstituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.

Marcus, Joyce1998 Women’s ritual in formative Oaxaca: figurine-

making, divination, death and the ancestors.Memoirs No. 33. Museum of Anthropology,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Martin, Alexander2001 The dynamics of precolumbian Spondylus trade

across the South American central Pacific coast.M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

McAnany, Patricia A.2002 Rethinking the great and little tradition

paradigm from the perspective of domestic ritual.In Domestic ritual in ancient Mesoamerica, edited byPatricia Plunket, pp. 115–120. Monograph 46,Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

McClelland, Donald1986 Brick seriation at Pacatnamú. In The Pacatnamú

papers, Vol. 1, edited by C. Donnan andG. Cock, pp. 27–46. University of CaliforniaPress, Los Angeles.

Montoya, Maria Vera2004 Complejo de ofrendas rituales y su asociación

a sacrificios humanos de niños en la epocaChimú en el valle de Moche. In Desarrolloarqueológico costa norte del Perú, Vol. 2, edited byLuis Valle Alvarez, pp. 27–48. Ediciones SIAN,Trujillo, Peru.

Moore, Jerry D.1996 Architecture and power in the ancient Andes.

Cambridge University Press, New York.2003 Life behind walls: patterns in the urban landscape

on the prehistoric North Coast of Peru. InThe social construction of ancient cities, edited byMonica L. Smith, pp. 81–102. SmithsonianPress, Washington, D.C.

Moore, Jerry D., and Carol J. Mackey2008 The Chimú empire. In The handbook of

South American archaeology, edited byH. Silverman and W. Isbell, pp. 783–808.Springer, New York.

Morris, Craig1979 Maize beer in the economy, politics, and

religion of the Inca empire. In Fermented foodbeverages in nutrition, edited byClifford Gastineau, pp. 21–34. Academic Press,New York.

Moseley, Michael E., and Kent Day (editors)1982 Chan Chan: Andean desert city. University of New

Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Narváez, Alfredo1995 The pyramids of Túcume: the monumental


20

sector. In Pyramids of Túcume: the quest for Peru’sforgotten city, edited by Thor Heyerdahl,Daniel Sandweiss, and Alfredo Narváez,pp. 79–130. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Pillsbury, Joanne1996 The thorny oyster and the origins of empire:

implications of recently uncovered Spondylusimagery from Chan Chan, Peru. Latin AmericanAntiquity 7(4): 313–40.

Plunket, Patricia2002 Introduction. In Domestic ritual in ancient

Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, pp.1–10. Monograph 46. Cotsen Institute ofArchaeology, Los Angeles.

Prieto, O. Gabriel2010 Aproximaciones a la configuración política

Lambayeque: una perspectiva desde el sitio deSan José de Moro, Valle de Jequetepeque. InComparative perspectives on the archaeology ofcoastal South America, edited byRobyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-Hurtado,and Alexander Martin, pp. 231–246. Universityof Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin AmericanArchaeology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Ramirez, Susan2005 To feed and be fed: cosmological bases of authority

and identity in the Andes. Stanford UniversityPress, Stanford.

Redfield, Robert1956 Peasant society and culture. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.Ringberg, Jennifer E.2008 Figurines, household rituals, and the use of dom-

estic space in a middle Moche rural community.In Arqueología mochica: nuevos enfoques, edited byLuis Jaime Castillo Hèléne Bernier,Gregory Lockhard, and Julio Rucabado, pp.341–358. Pontificia Unversidad Católica delPeru and Instituto Francés de EstudiosAndinos, Lima.

Robin, Cynthia2002 Outside of houses: the practices of everyday life at

Chan Noohol, Belize. Journal of SocialArchaeology 2(2): 245–268.

Sandweiss, Daniel1992 The archaeology of Chincha fishermen: specializ-

ation and status in Inka Perú. Bulletin of theCarnegie Museum of Natural History 29,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Sandweiss, Daniel, and Elizabeth Wing1997 Ritual rodents: the guinea pigs of Chincha, Peru.

Journal of Field Archaeology 24(1): 47–58.

Sapp, William2011 Lambayeque Norte and Lambayeque Sur: evidence

for the development of an indigenous Lambayequepolity in the Jequetepeque Valley, Peru. In Fromstate to empire in the prehistoric Jequetepeque Valley,Peru, edited by Colleen Zori and Ilana Johnson,pp. 93–104. British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 2310. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Sillar, Bill1992 The social life of Andean dead. Archaeological

Review from Cambridge 11(1): 107–124.Smith, Michael E.2002 Domestic ritual at Aztec provincial sites in Morelos.

In Domestic ritual in ancient Mesoamerica, edited byPatricia Plunket, pp. 93–114. Monograph 46.Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Staller, John E.2010 Maize cobs and cultures: history of Zea mays L.

Springer, New York.Swenson, Edward R.2004 Ritual Power in the Urban Hinterland: Religious

Pluralism and Political Decentralization in LateMoche Jequetepeque. Peru. Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago.

2007 Local ideological strategies and the politics ofritual space in the Chimú empire. ArchaeologicalDialogues 14(1): 61–90.

Topic, John R.1982 Lower-class social and economic organization at

Chan Chan. In Chan Chan: Andean desert city,edited by Michael Moseley and Kent Day, pp.145–176. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Uceda, Santiago2008 The priests of the bicephalus arc: tombs and effigies

found in Huaca de la Luna and their relation toMoche rituals. In The art and archaeology of theMoche, edited by Steve Bourget andKimberly Jones, pp. 153–178. University ofTexas Press, Austin.

VanValkenburg, N. Parker, and Jeffrey Quilter2008 Continuity and transformation in indigenous house-

holds during the colonial period: recent insightsfrom Magdalena de Cao Viejo, Peru. Paper pre-sented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, Vancouver, B.C.

Vaughn, Kevin J.2009 The ancient Andean village: Marcaya in prehispanic

Nasca. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Wiessner, Polly, and Wulf Schiefenhövel (editors)1996 Food and the status quest: an interdisciplinary perspec-

tive. Berghahn Books, Providence, Rhode Island.


21

Household Ofrendas and Community Feasts: Ritual at a Late Intermediate Period Village in the Jequetepeque Valley, Peru

Documents