Galli Nazo

8/14/2019 Galli Nazo

1/12

Gallinazo,Vics and Moche in thedevelopment of complex societies along

the north coast of Peru

Luis Jaime Castillo Butters

Pontificia UniversidadCatlica del Per


2/12

Castillo, Gallinazo-Vics-Moche Complex Societies 2

Gallinazo,Vics and Moche in thedevelopment of complex societies along

the north coast of Peru

Luis Jaime Castillo Butters

Without having agreed to do it in advance, themajority of the participants in the present symposiumarrived at the same general conclusions regarding thenature of the Gallinazo (or Vir) phenomenon and its

relation with Moche (Larco Hoyle 1945, 1948).Christopher Donnan (this volume) was probably themost emphatic of all, arguing that what we callGallinazo is nothing more than the popular materialculture produced on the north coast before, duringand even after the development of Moche states. Onlynegative-painted vessels, in the form of GallinazoNegative and Carmelo Negative ceramic types (Ford1949), would represent distinct elite styles, easilydifferentiated from artifacts used by the popularsubstratum (Figs.1 y 2).

All the participants to this symposium, at least tosome extent, were in agreement with thisinterpretation, contributing evidence to support theidea that the Gallinazo did not disappear with theirruption of the Moche phenomenon, having coexistedand even in some cases survived its collapse. In thebetter-documented studies, as in Dos Cabezas andMazanca (Donnan, this volume), and in the La Le-

che Valley (Shimada and Maguia 1994) thepreexistence of Gallinazo as a crucible in which theMoche identity was forged, is indisputable. It seemsthat with this agreement we can at last explain the

strange, yet not so rare, presence of Gallinazoceramics in Moche burials and other contexts. Untilnow the only plausible explanation for suchoccurrences was that Gallinazo objects were ancientceramic reused by the Moche or Moche copies ofGallinazo wares. Now we can assume that thepresence of Gallinazo ceramics inside rich Mochegraves simply correspond to a contamination oflower status items.

Since there is near unanimity on this crucial point,it seems that we have arrived to a consensus andthat we can all go home satisfied with the results ofthis magnificent conference. However, there are stillloose ends in this formulation; some things are leftunexplained, and new hypothesis will need to beexplored in the light of the new paradigm. Here Iwould like to highlight those aspects which I believestill need to be addressed. Ultimately I would like toargue that there was more continuity between Galli-nazo and Moche than we had originally believed.

LuisJaime Castillo Butters. Profesor Principal del Departamento de Humanidades, Seccin de Arqueologa y Director de Relaciones

Internacionales y Cooperacin de la Pontifica Universidad Catlica del Per. ([email protected])

Actas del Primer Simposium sobre la Cultura Gallinazo, editado por Jean Francoise Millaire


3/12


The Gallinazo Phenomenon

One peculiar thing about Gallinazo is that manyarchaeologists working in the North Coast of Peru

feel uncomfortable defining it as a culture, a society,or a style. As a result and until we find a betterterm it is simply described as a culturalphenomenon, which developed in multiple regionsalong the north coast during the first millennia of thepresent era, materializing is artifacts, particularlyceramics, which share forms and decoration elementsand techniques. But how was this homogeneityachieved? We do not know if there existed some formof coordination between the different entities whichproduced Gallinazo objects, a coordination that could

be blamed for the shared forms and decorations.Traditionally we have assumed that the Gallinazophenomenon had no strong internal cohesion nor thatit was coordinated throughout the north coast. Giventhese assumptions, it seemed constraining to conceivethe Gallinazo as a culture or as a society, since weassume that the different nuclei were not integratedunder a common organizational structure, that theylacked centralization, that their populations did not liveinside large settlements, that their burials did notreflect great social complexity and that their art wasnot especially elaborate. Although Heidy Fogel (1993)argued several years ago but without much evidence,that there existed a Gallinazo State, most scholarshave been reluctant to accept that the state-level ofsocio-political organization was achieved beforeMoche times (see Castillo 1999). As new evidenceclearly shows (this volume in particular), the Gallina-zo phenomenon occurred throughout the north coastof Peru, thus achieving one important condition ofcomplex societies, a far reaching extension and a largepopulation . As we will discuss, this last statement islimited by the lack of detailed information about each

of those independent developments.It is now time to address the organizational nature

of this phenomenon, its level of complexity, and itsinstitutions. Were the Gallinazo a number of complexchiefdoms (cacicazgos) which were independent andisolated from each other? Were they articulatedthrough some form of still uncertain culturalmechanism, process or institution? Or, as Larco andFogel suggested, was Gallinazo an expansive and te-rritorial state? A comparison with the Moche can bequite illustrative to address these questions.

One critical point to acknowledge is that recentbreakthroughs in the study of the Moche were

Fig. 1. Castillo Negative sherds registered at Huaca deLa Cruz. From Strong and Evans 1952.

Fig. 2. Carmelo Negative sherds registered at Huaca dela Cruz. From Strong and Evans 1952.


4/12


heralded by a better understanding of its political andsocial organization. Recognizing that the Moche hadbeen organized in multiple interacting polities, (Fig.2)each one developing through distinct historical

processes (see Castillo and Uceda 2008, Quilter 2002)has had two main effects. First, it has refocus thestudy of the Moche on its regional expressions, sinceeach one was a political entity with a particularhistorical development, more or less integrated to theMoche phenomenon by ritual performance and so-cial interactions of the elites. Second, this newperspective has made the centralized and hierarchicalmodel of the Moche inconsistent and full ofcontradictions (Bawden 2001, 2004, Castillo andDonnan 1994, Dillehay 2001, Shimada 1994). IfMoche was a unique, centralized state, it could hardlyhave been embodied regionally by the presence oftotally different ceramics styles. Similarly, it is hardto see how the state styles (for example, MocheIV fine-line ceramics and portrait jars) could haveonly been ubiquitous in some regions but not in others.Finally, it is difficult to understand how thedevelopment processes materialized in the speedand direction of the formal and stylistic changescould have been so different from one region toanother. One important aspect of the intellectualprocess that lead to the new and complex theoretical

conception of the Moche (a complex of independentstates that had followed different developments) wasthat it was formulated while we still lacked all theempirical data to support it, and thus, the model led

the search for the evidence(Fig.3). It has been quiteinteresting to see how as a better understanding ofsocial and political organization arose, many otherelements (for instance, the distinctions in arts andiconography, the evolutions of their styles, thedevelopments and uses of ideology, stratigraphic andmetric chronologies, the differentiated process thatled to their decadences and collapses) all fall in theirright place, producing a more coherent and diversifiedvision of the Moche.

While trying to establish the politic and social

nature of Gallinazo, it is essential to question its originand cultural homogeneity, or maybe we should firstFig. 3. Map of the North Coast showing the mostimportant Mochica Sites.

Fig. 4. Castillo Modeled sherds registerd at Huaca de

la Cruz. From Strong and Evans 1952.

Fig. 5. Castillo Incised sherds registered at Huaca de laCruz. From Strong and Evans 1952.


5/12


try to define if such homogeneity existed, if there is auniverse of forms and designs that would correspondto a grand Gallinazo tradition. Now that we are certainof the multiple incarnations of the phenomenon, a

detailed, comparative study of its forms, techniquesand decorations is in order. The ceramics that weusually call Gallinazo is surprisingly similar all alongthe north coast and throughout almost a millenniumparticularly so with regard to medium-qualityceramic objects. But agreeing that Gallinazo was apopular style (in the sense of the style of the people)along the north coast for a large part of the EarlyIntermediate period does not explain the reasonsbehind this formal and stylistic homogeneity. In otherwords, it does not explain why and how the productionof a large number of people along the coast overseveral centuries could have come to harmonize itselfand why and how it came to share so many commontraits. The most popular and domestic ceramicsconsider under the Gallinazo banner, the Castillo Plain,Castillo Incised, and Castillo Modeled styles, are sosimilar in all the regions were we find them, thussharing a great stylistic coherence, that could not havebeen the result of chance, nor the product of aphenomenon of cultural convergence (Figs.4 y 5).We should expect that in one thousand years manyproduction units (for example, ceramic workshops)

would have drifted into differentiated styles.The existence of homogeneity among the multiple

Gallinazo compels us to consider the existence ofharmonizing mechanisms. If there exist similaritiesbetween artifacts that we call Gallinazo over 400 kmof coastal landscape, between the Piura Valley to thenorth to the Santa Valley to the south, it is necessarilybecause there existed some form of connection orchannels of communication between the differentpeople that inhabited these regions and produced thoseobjects. It seems acceptable to me to assume that

this connection was the result of some form of affinitysomething common and shared by all that couldhave had a political, economic or ideological character,but was, anyhow, articulated through norms thatharmonized the production, most likely mechanismsof social interaction such as regional commercialexchanges and ceremonial activities or exogamousmarriage and bridal exchanges.

Taking into account that the subject matter ofGallinazo ceramics art are generally not divinities,supernatural beings, priests or members of the elites,

but ra ther ordinary men and women withoutsumptuous attire, it would seem that there was no

need to represent the characters of their religiouscosmos. The absence of such characters, moredirectly connected with the realms of ideology orpolitics, would deny the objects produced in this style

the condition of materializations of a dominatingideology, and as the instrument of a strategy of controland manipulation. This low profile of Gallinazoiconography reinforces what Donnan (this volume)described as the popular character of this ceramic.In this perspective Gallinazo objects would expressthe identity of the lower classes, without other functionthan to express their aesthetics, and conventions.

The economic articulation and interdependenceof Gallinazo political entities, and the production anddistribution of goods among and between them wouldseem to have been the least important factorproducing an harmonization of material culture. It islikely that autarkic models were the norm amongGallinazo communities and that the most importanteconomic complementarities were developedvertically with the highlands. Jean-Franois Millaire(this volume) maximized the political, ideological andeconomic fragmentation of Gallinazo society, arguingthat the political configuration of those societies couldhave corresponded to a city-state system: politicalentities that were internally strongly articulated butessentially independent from one another each

evolving inside a limited sphere and possibly engagingin confrontation and competitions with their neighbors.It is also improbable that there would have been apolitical or economic integration between the differentregions where this phenomenon appeared, wherebyindividuals would be constantly in such contacts thata homogenization of their ceramic styles would result.Thus, the Gallinazo style could not be the result ofpolitical action or the effect of the coordination froma leader or from a supra-community entity.

If Gallinazo style was not the materialization of

an organized religion, nor was it forged by north-coast-wide politics or economics, and it was clearly not astate style, because a Gallinazo state is unlikely, thenone remaining explanation for the high homogeneitybetween the multiple regional expressions of thephenomenon is that it was produced by socialinteractions. By social interactions I think inopportunities in which Gallinazo individuals comingfrom more or less isolated communities, were incontact with fellow Gallinazo, having the opportunityto experience the life ways of the others, their

traditions, products, technologies, aesthetics, etc. Ifthese interaction were of a more permanent nature,


6/12


for example when an individual born and raised in acommunity moved into another, the interactionsbetween local cultures, their reciprocal influencesand continuous and more frequent contacts should

have had a stronger effect. For instance, activitiesinvolving a regional gathering such as exchangemarkets, traditional festivals or religious ceremoniessponsored by the state or regional authority that arestill quite frequent in the central Andes, could havehad a cultural harmonization effect for those involved.On the other hand, and equally plausible as an effect,participation in these events could have reinforcedlocal identities and their expressions, for instancedistinctions in clothing. Still today such eventscongregate people from different villages and areusually attended by traders and producers fromremote places. For a ceramicist or a textile producerthese events would provide ideal opportunities toobserve and compare what other artisans wereproducing, the techniques and motives they wereusing to form and decorate pots and garments. Ifexchanges were possible, products obtained in thesesettings will later serve as sources of inspiration. LateMoche artisans, for example, were producing copiesof polychrome Wari vessels short after these objectsstart to appear in their communities. Albeit the copieswere not as good as the originals, it is interesting to

note how much experimentation went on and howfast it occurred.

Even more important than the exchange ofobjects, regional gatherings have always been locifor social interactions and contacts leading to theinevitably mobility of people, particularly for theyounger members of society, and assuming thatexogamy was the rule. It is obvious that the mostimportant source of stylistic influence comes fromindividuals, women and men, that are incorporatedinto a new community through matrimony or migration,

contributing and syncretizing their own knowledge,iconography, techniques, manufacturing processes,understanding of materials, and their own aesthetics.The stylistic and formal homogeneity of Gallinazodomestic ceramics could have been one effect of suchsocial interactions between different coastalcommunities.

Until now in this commentary, and throughoutthis volume, an assumption has gone unchallenged:that there existed a high stylistic homogeneity amongartifacts produced by the Gallinazo from different

parts of the north coast. That is precisely why wecall all these expressions Gallinazo, and not other re-

gional names. This assumption has yet to be empiricallyproven, as it is essentially based on observedsimilarities between the most conspicuous artifactsin the archaeological record. We still need to define

empirically if there was formal and stylistichomogeneity in the ceramic production from differentregions, and if co-variations occurred if variationsin one region were coeval with variations in others.Clearly, we still lack detailed studies of Gallinazoceramics in each region, as well as comparativeworks. Perhaps the similarities are more pronouncedbetween certain regions and less between others. Ifat the end of this exercise we come to the convictionthat there existed a large degree of homogeneity,consequently looking for its causes and its mechanismswill become even more imperative. Yet, stylistichomogeneity does not necessarily imply politicalintegration. In Moche archaeology it took us nearly ahundred years to realize that the stylistic differencesreflected in reality a highly complex political mapcomposed of independent polities (Castillo ms1,Dillehay 2001).

From Gallinazo to Moche

The presence of Gallinazo ceramics in Moche

contexts at Huaca de la Luna (Uceda 2001), PampaGrande (Shimada 1994), Sipn (Alva 2004) and SanJos de Moro (Castillo 2001, 2003; Castillo et al.2008; Del Carpio, this volume) leaves no doubt thatthe Moche traditions had a Gallinazo base, and thatboth traditions coexisted at least until the end ofMoche. However, considering that the Mochethemselves developed form the Gallinazo substratuminto multiple polities, it is evident that the processeswhich led from Gallinazo to Moche were multiple andhighly distinct, and were the result of different causes,

conditions, opportunities and influences peculiar toeach region of the north coast. In all cases, theGallinazo materials are more frequent in the earlierphases of Moche development, leading us to theconclusion that the Moche evolved from the Gallinazo,and not that both evolved together from a commonancestor. But when and how did this evolution occur?And more important, what were the conditions underwhich and the reasons why this process took place?

Searching for the precise location or regionwhere the Moche first appeared, that is to say, wherethe Gallinazo first transformed into the Moche, doesnot seem to be very productive. Subjective criteria,


7/12


as the apparent primitiveness of Moche artifacts formPiura, have been used as indication for the originalmother land of the Moche (Kaulicke 1992, Klein1967). It is evident now that the transformation wereprocesses lasting for several hundred years, and

happening simultaneously in many valleys of the northcoast, , and thus, that each process has to beinvestigated independently. The Lambayeque,Jequetepeque, Chicama and Moche Valleys, alllocated in the core of Mocheland, seem to be themost likely candidates, and it is quite possible thateach location cross-polinized the others in a real co-evolution (Figs.6 y 7). The time frame for theseprocesses is quite long, with dates that range the entire200-500 a.D. period (Castillo and Uceda 2008).

Arguing too much about the time and locationfor this transformation could end up in an irrelevantcompetition that misses the most important question:Why did the Gallinazo transformed into the Moche?In my opinion, the window of opportunity that createdthe conditions for the development of the Moche formthe oldest Gallinazo substratum was a sudden growthand development of Gallinazo groups between thefirst and second centuries before the present era, agrowth such that a new elite, the Moche, defined bya new and distinct tradition. The only material basisthat could have supported that kind of suddendevelopment must have been an increase in resource

availability due to better agricultural practices. This

should imply that either productivity was increased,that is that yields per hectare grew, or that the size ofthe available agricultural land was increased. Butyields per hectare were probably at their maximum(considering the technology available at the time), so

an increase in agricultural land seems to be the fac-tor the supported social growth and development.There is plenty of reasons to believe that, at least inthe Jequetepeque Valley, this period coincides withthe extension of agricultural land through larger andbetter irrigation systems. In the first halve of the firstmillennium a.D., coinciding with the transformationof the Gallinazo into the Moche, the largest irrigationprograms were star ted and comple ted in theJequetepeque Valley with the incorporation of thenorthern Chamn Region (Castillo ms1.) (Fig.8).Thisprocess implied the construction of at least four megachannels and the necessary infrastructure for waterdistribution. Access to new lands, control of watersand irrigation systems, and development of strategiesof control and administration of natural resourcescreated the opportunities and conditions forincreasingly more acute social, political, and economicdifferentiations (Castillo ms1). A new social class,which benefited from this new source of wealth,seems to have emerged in the core of the Gallinazosociety. The Moche seem to have been this new so-cial class, at first as a segment of Gallinazo, but slowly

transforming the entire Gallinazo society into a new

Fig. 6. Gallinazo Pot registered at Dos Cabezas. FromDonnan 2008.

Fig. 7. Gallinazo Pitcher registered at SJM in the MiddleMoche Tomb.


8/12


cultural phenomenon. New social classes and unequaleconomic relationships between social segmentsrequired an ideological superstructure to justify andlegitimize the new social order. At the same time asthe Moche were evolving from their ancestors arevolution was happening in the realm of ritual, per-

formance and the production of the necessarymaterializations of these new ideas. Again thetransition between Gallinazo and Moche was a timeof extreme creativity and productivity that went intothe production of both portable objects of unparalleledquality and craftsmanship, as well as monumentalarchitecture to support the new rituals. The materialexpressions of this ideology served to differentiatethe Gallinazo commoners from the Moche elites andlegitimize their control over the new source of wealth(DeMarrais et al. 1996).

Let us analyze what is currently known of theformal and stylistic processes which led north coastceramics from Gallinazo to Moche in some keyregions. In Piura, the Gallinazo substratum evolvedinto an elaborate Early Moche style that we associatewith the Loma Negra tombs and with Moche-Vicsceramics. During the middle phase, Vics MocheMedio, artifacts of all kinds stemmed-off the Mochestyle and became a style of its own with forms,techniques and singular decorative motifs (Makowski1994).

In the Lambayeque region it is clear that Galli-

nazo political entities coexisted with Moche politiesduring both the Early and Middle periods. Izumi

Shimada and Adriana Maguia (1994) proposed todivide this region into two, with the Gallinazo populationin control of the La Leche Valley, to the north, whileMoche seems to be represented on sites located inthe Chancay-Reque Valley, to the south. During theLate Moche period both late Gallinazo ceramics and

Moche V ceramics are found together at PampaGrande (Shimada 1994). This is quite odd becauseMoche V was circumscribed to the Chicama Valley(Castillo and Uceda 2008).

In Jequetepeque, work by Donnan (2001) hasshowed that the Moche style derived in its early stagefrom a solid and well-established Gallinazo style.During the Middle Moche period, the Gallinazo styledeclines to the advantage of Moche-style ceramics,which by then start to include utilitarian forms. Bythe Late Moche period, the Gallinazo style had nearlydisappeared in this region.

In Chicama and Moche, evidence indicates thecoexistence of Gallinazo and Moche ceramictraditions during the Early and Middle Moche periods,but we still lack data to argue that one tradition derivedfrom the other or that they simply coexisted side byside. Santiago Uceda, Henry Gayoso and NadiaGamarra (this volume) and Gabriel Prieto (Prieto2004) have demonstrated that at Huaca de la Lunathe coexistence of both ceramic styles, Mocherepresented in ceremonial and decorative wares andGallinazo represented in utilitarian wares, was

continuous and could not be the product of two distinctsocieties, but rather of two distinct ceramic production

Fig. 9. Gallinazo Negative sherds registered at Huaca dela Luna. From Gayoso and Gamarra 2008.

Fig. 8. Map of the Expansion Stage of the cultivablelands in the Jequetepeque Valley showing

the principal irrigation canals.


9/12


units produced and used by the same people (Fig.9).South of Moche, in the Vir and Santa valleys, a

vigorous Gallinazo style existed, probably reflectingthe existence of a more complex political formation

than those that existed to the north a true statewith its capital at the Gallinazo Group (Bennett 1950;Fogel 1993; Strong and Evans 1952)(Fig.10). Thelatter was apparently incorporated into the Mochestate based in the Moche and Chicama valleys through

a process of military conquests (Strong and Evans1952; Willey 1953, 1974; cf. Millaire, this volume).

The reconstruction of the processes that leadfrom Moche to Gallinazo or that permitted the

coexistence of both traditions does not necessarilyimply understanding of the factors that produced thosechanges. It is common in Andean archaeology todescribe a phenomenon, yet fail to understand itscauses and conditions. In the case of the transitionfrom Gallinazo to Moche, and the survival of Gallina-zo as a popular component of Moche, the conditionsremain unclear but the processes are clearly differentin every region, yet in all of them the Gallinazophenomenon shows a high degree of homogeneity.The Gallinazo phenomenon and its expression in

domestic ceramics survived all the processes thattransformed Gallinazo to Moche, which led todifferent political formations and which had distinctintensities depending on the region. Does it mean thatthe populations who produced those objects we callGallinazo survived the transformations that led to thecreation of the Moche with fairly little changes? Orthat those persons, which were already fullyincorporated into the Moche culture, maintained afew characters of their former tradition, particularlythe production of domestic ceramics in the fashion of

their Gallinazo ancestors?(Fig.11).These issues bring us back to question the natureFig. 11. Gallinazo Face-Pitcher registered at SJM in theMiddle Moche tomb M-U813.

Fig. 10. Map of the Viru Valley indicating the most important archaeological sites. From Larco 1994.


10/12


of the Gallinazo phenomenon. Was Gallinazo an ethnicidentity or simply a way of making ceramics sharedby ethnically distinct populations? Was the stylistichomogeneity observed a result of cultural affinity?

We have ruled out that the high degree of stylistichomogeneity could have been the outcome of apolitical integration, or the product of consciousdecisions taken by the elites. Quite the contrary, Ga-llinazo appears to have been a popular substratumthat wasnt controlled by political institutions norinfluenced by the dominant ideology. And if this wasthe case, then how did the communication canals thatallowed this homogeneity survived all orders ofpolitical and economic transformations? It seems that,beneath the formal practices and relations sanctionedby the state, there were networks of contacts andcommunications between popular segments of thepopulations, across the whole north coast of Peru andthrough an extended period of time. If we can confirmthe existence of such an odd process, a popular culturethat acts as a river that runs through and under theMoche state, that defies the logic of all our notion ofpolitical integration, we would stil need to clarify,among other things, its nature, its units of action, itsspheres of interaction, and its mechanisms ofharmonization.

Investigation and Reconstruction of theGallinazo Phenomenon

One of the limits that we face in reconstructingthe Gallinazo phenomenon is the limited quantity ofempirical information available from controlledconditions of investigation. So far, only a fewinvestigation projects have specifically focused onGallinazo. A majority of archaeologists have come tostudy this phenomenon in the process of conducting

salvage projects or as part of wider investigations onnorth coast cultural history. After Wendell Bennettsinvestigations at the Gallinazo Group (Bennett 1950)more than fifty years ago, no excavations have beenundertaken at this site, even though its importancefor understanding this phenomenon is unquestionable.A new study of the Gallinazo Group is urgent, but thisneeds to be done as part of a long-term and large-scale project in order to gain access to the details ofthe sites occupational history, ceramic sequence andthe activities and rituals that were performed therein.

Regrettably, a large part of north coastarchaeology was based on surface surveys with little

or no systematic excavations. Even though GordonWilley (1953) demonstrated the importance and thevalidity of settlement pattern studies precisely throughhis original work in the Vir Valley, this kind of

research by itself does not solve all the problems, nordoes it answers all the questions, and it is particularlyill equipped to deal with occupational and functionalmatters, or with social relations and activities. Thoughthis method usually offers a broad picture, the quantityof information associated with each component isusually very small and lacks proper context. Long-term excavations programs, on the other hand, offerdetailed images with an abundance of material, butwhich is limited to the sites under study. Thisdichotomy brings us to the ever-lasting academicparadox where it is unclear whether it is better toknow a lot about a few things or little about a largernumber of things. Studies based exclusively on surfacesurveys, surface collections and mapping, whateverthe methods used, usually present a distorted imageof the reality of the past. They are essentially basedon what appears on the surface and what has notbeen reclaimed by later occupants of the site. On theother hand, research based exclusively in the a site,whether typical or exceptional, without a broadunderstanding of regional patters of site distribution,their relations and interactions with the environment,

as in the case of the excavations conducted in Sipansince 1987, is also not desirable.

Consider, for example, what we would know ofHuaca de la Luna if this site had been investigatedusing only superficial methods, or through a small-scale excavation project. In fact, we know the answerto this question, since the site was studied in this wayduring the 1970s with results that were franklydeficient, particularly in light of the work conductedby Santiago Uceda and Ricardo Morales there since1991 (Uceda 2001). It is clear that scale of the

investigation and the duration of the projects are twofactors that strongly influence our capacity ofunderstanding the phenomena that we study. Thescale of the excavations at Huaca de la Luna, El Brujoor San Jos de Moro provide archaeologists withcomplex images of a past and not only a collection oftheir most salient and superficial features.

It is imperative that more research projects areundertaken on Gallinazo sites. Those should bemultidisciplinary projects dedicated to studying largeparts of those settlements and last long enough so

that the investigators ideas and interpretations canmature and be confronted during subsequent field


11/12

Castillo, Gallinazo-Vics-Moche Complex Societies 1 1

seasons. With regard to Gallinazo, a lot still needs tobe done in terms of field archaeology, includingexcavations of domestic and ceremonial settlements,tombs, temples, workshops and storage facilities. This

type of investigation should produce the necessarydata a serious attempt to reconstruct the GallinazoWorld. Clearly, efforts like the ones which broughtus to this conference, and the papers presented inthis volume, are steps in the right directions.

Bibliography

Alva, Walter2004 Sipn: descubrimiento e investigacin. Lima.

Bawden, Garth2001 The Symbols of Late Moche Social Transformation.

In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru,edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 285305. NationalGallery of Art and Yale University Press, Washington,D.C.

2004 The Art of Moche Politics. In Andean Archaeology,edited by Helaine Silverman, pp. 116129. BlackwellStudies in Global Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing,Oxford.

Bennett, Wendell C.

1950 The Gallinazo Group, Viru Valley, Peru. Yale UniversityPublications in Anthropology, no. 43. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.

Castillo, Luis Jaime1999 Los Mochicas y sus antecesores: las primeras

civilizaciones estatales de la costa del Per. In Teso-ros del Per antiguo, by Krzysztof Makowski et al.,

pp. 141176. [Exhibition catalogue, Museo Arqueo-lgico Rafael Larco Herrera] Publicaciones Obra So-cial y Cultural CajaSur, Crdoba.

2001 The Last of the Mochicas: A View from theJequetepeque Valley. In Moche Art and Archaeologyin Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 307332. National Gallery of Art and Yale University Press,Washington, D.C.

2003 Los ltimos Mochicas en Jequetepeque. In Moche:Hacia el final del milenio, edited by Santiago Ucedaand Elas Mujica, vol. 2, pp. 65123. Universidad

Nacional de Trujillo and Fondo Editorial, PontificiaUniversidad Catlica del Per, Lima.

Ms 1.Moche Politics in the Jequetepeque Valley, a case forPolitical Opportunism. Paper presented to the volume

New Pe rs pect ives on the Mo che Po li ti ca lOrganization. edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jai-

me Castillo. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library andCollection, Washington, D.C.

Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime, Julio Rucabado Yong, MartnDel Carpio Perla, Katiuska Bernuy Quiroga, Karim RuizRosell, Carlos Rengifo Chunga, Gabriel PrietoBurmester y Carole Fraresso

2008Ideologa y Poder en la Consolidacin, Colapso yReconstitucin del Estado Mochica del Jequetepeque.El Proyecto Arqueolgico San Jos de Moro (1991 -2005). awpa Paccha,.26: Berkeley, Institute ofAndean Studies.

Castillo, Luis Jaime, and Christopher B. Donnan1994Los mochicas del norte y los mochicas del sur: una

perspectiva desde el valle de Jequetepeque. In Vics,edited by Krzysztof Makowski and Christopher B.Donnan, pp. 143181. Coleccin Arte y Tesoros delPer. Banco de Crdito del Per, Lima.

Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime y Santiago Uceda Castillo2008 The Mochicas. In: Handbook of South American

Archaeology,editado por Helaine Silverman y WilliamIsbell, Chapter 36:707-729. Springer, New York.

DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo y Timothy Earle1996Ideology, materialization, and power strategies.

Current Anthropology 37 (1): 15-31. Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research.

Dillehay, Tom D.2001Town and Country in Late Moche Times: A View from

Two Northern Valleys. In Moche Art and Archaeologyin Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 259283. National Gallery of Art and Yale University Press,Washington, D.C.

Donnan, Christopher B.2001 Moche Burials Uncovered. National Geographic

Magazine 199(3):5873.

Fogel, Heidy1993Settlements in Time: A Study of Social and Political

Development during the Gallinazo Occupation of the

North Coast of Per. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, YaleUniversity.

Ford, James A.1949 Cultural Dating of Prehistoric Sites in Vir Valley, Peru.

In Surface Survey of the Vir Valley, Peru, pp. 2987.Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of

Natural History, vol. 43, part 1. New York.

Kaulicke, Peter1992 Moche, Vics Moche y el Mochica Temprano. Bulletin

de lInstitut Franais dtudes Andines 21(3):853

903.


12/12


Klein, Otto1967La cermica mochica: caracteres estilsticos y con-

ceptos. Scientia (Valparaso) 131.

Larco Hoyle, Rafael

1945 La cultura Vir. Sociedad Geogrfica Americana, Bue-nos Aires.

1948Cronologa arqueolgica del norte del Per. Bibliote-ca del Museo de Arqueologa Rafael Larco Herrera.Sociedad Geogrfica Americana, Buenos Aires.

Makowski, Krzysztof1994Los seores de Loma Negra. In Vics, edited by

Krzysztof Makowski and Christopher B. Donnan, pp.83141. Coleccin Arte y Tesoros del Per. Banco deCrdito del Per, Lima.

Prieto, Gabriel2004La poza de Huanchaco: una aldea de pescadores es-tratgica durante el colapso del poder religioso y

poltico de las Huacas de Moche. Unpublishedlicentiate thesis, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo,Trujillo.

Quilter, Jeffrey2002Moche Politics, Religion and Warfare. Journal of

World Prehistory, 16(2): 145-195. Plenum PublishingCorporation.

Shimada, Izumi1994Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. University

of Texas Press, Austin.

Shimada, Izumi, and Adriana Maguia1994Nueva visin sobre la cultura gallinazo y su relacin

con la cultura moche. In Moche: propuestas y pers-pectivas, edited by Santiago Uceda and Elas Mujica,pp. 3158. Travaux de lInstitut Franais dtudesAndines, no. 79. Universidad Nacional de La Liber-tad, Trujillo and Instituto Francs de EstudiosAndinos, Lima.

Strong, William D., and Clifford Evans1952 Cultural Stratigraphy in the Vir Valley, Northern Peru:

The Formative and Florescent Epoch. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.

Uceda, Santiago2001Investigations at Huaca de la Luna, Moche Valley:

An Example of Moche Religious Architecture. InMoche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited

by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 4767. National Gallery ofArt and Yale University Press, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R.1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Vir Valley, Per.Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American

Ethnology, Bulletin 155. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

1974The Vir Valley Settlement Pattern Study. InArchaeological Researches in Retrospect, edited byGordon R. Willey, pp. 149176. Winthrop Publishers,

Cambridge, Mass.

Documents

Galli Nazo