Prehistoric Principles of Labor Organization in the Moche Valley, Peru M. Edward Moseley American Antiquity, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1975), 191-196. Stable URL htp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=0002-73 16% 28197504%2940%3A2% 3C 19 1%3APPOLOI%3E2.0,CO%3B2-R American Antiquity is currently published by Society for American Archaeology Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www jstor.org/journals/sam. html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupslwww jstor.org/ Fri Sep 16 13:36:02 2005REPORTS PREHISTORIC PRINCIPLES OF LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE MOCHE VALLEY, PERU M. EDWARD MOsELEY Prehistoric construction projects in the Moche Valley required the mobilization and coordination of very large numbers of individuate [ets thought that workers were mobilized by means of labor tax obligotont, and large projects were subdivided into repetitive tasks executed by distinct parties of workmen drawn from separate My purpose is to present a model of the prehistoric organizational principles used to coordinate and mobilize the labor forces need: ed for executing large-scale construction pro- jects in the Moche Valley, Peru. The model has five propositions and a corollary hypothesis. The propositions are as follows. First, prehistoric work forces were com: posed of distinct parties of laborers, and each party had a separate identity. Second, individuals in the same work party were members of the same social group, and Gifferent parties were drawn from different social units. These social groups corresponded to spatially distinct “communities.” Thus, sepa- rate labor parties were drawn from and identi fied with teritorially discrete social units. Third, each labor party was responsible for 2 particular set of tasks; there was a structured division of the work load between different parties, Fourth, the division of the work load was such that each party's task entailed a number of jobs, such as producing and laying up bricks, and many different parties performed essen ly the same type of repetitive task entailing the sime group of jobs. Fifth, corporate labor projects were planned and organized so that they were subdivided into specific, repetitive tasks. A large building project was a labor contract divided into ‘multiple, identical subcontracts, the fulillment ‘of which lay with separate work parties or contracted groups. The corollary hypothesis states that the tasks performed by a party were cartied out as fulfillment of a labor tax obligation owed to the authority initiating or sanctioning the pro- ject, 191 It is tempting to simplify the model and corollary to read: “Large-scale building projects were subdivided into specific tasks assigned to the residents of different communities to meet labor tax obligations owed to the ruling body of authority.” However, this may overstate the data which are drawn from four different sources, including: (1) the Huacas del Sol and de la Luna constructed during the Moche phase of the Early Intermediate period; (2) the Chimu capital of Chan Chan built largely during the Late Intermediate period; (3) the contemporary La Cumbre canal; and (4) the Trujillo eity wall ‘rected during the Colonial period. For con- venience the data are grouped into three cate- gories which reflect steps in the process of ‘construction: firs, the production of building materials; second, construction or the event of building; ‘and third, the planning of construc tion. PRODUCTION Many prehistoric construction projects demanded the production of building materials, OF these materials unfired bricks of mud, or adobes, reflect the organizational principles that brought forth their production because variations in form, size, and composition have patterned distributions. Soil types and makers’ ‘marks are important here Soil Types Bricks used in the same building were often composed of different soil types. This means the adobes were produced at different quarries Building the Sol and Luna Huacas required millions of bricks, most of which were of brown sit; however, adobes of yellow and graywwe soil were also employed. At Chan Chan color differences are less evident, but some adobes contain more salt than others, Bricks with a high carbonate content absorb moisture from the sir and this brings about their rapid exfoliation and erosion. The significance of variations in soil types, be it in color or salinity, is that the differences correlate with other architectural variables ‘Makers’ Marks During the third through the fifth phases of the Moche ceramic sequence, certain adobes had marks or symbols impressed on their tops, while the mud was still moist. The symbols are interpreted as marks used to distinguish dif- ferent lots of bricks. Insofar as the symbols were impressed during the process of manu facture they may be said to have served as makers’ marks, and provided a means of distin- auishing bricks made by different producers. Because several hundred million bricks were used in building the Sol and Luna platforms, and because just over 100 brick symbols are recorded from the platforms, the marks obvi- ously did not label individual adobe makers One hundred men could produce but a fraction of the bricks in the platforms. Rather, the marks must have distinguished groups or parties ‘of makers. In other words, each group of brick producers had its own mark. Attempts to correlate symbols with soil types produced ambiguous results. Some symbols were associated with only one soil type. This supports the contention that adobe ‘manufacture was carried out by distinct groups for parties of producers working separate soil quarries, However, there are also cases of a single makers’ mark appearing on bricks of ‘more than one soil type. This supports the argument that one group of producers worked ‘more than one soil quarry. Finally, with only three soil types, it is not surprising to find ‘many different marks on bricks of the same composition. This could mean that many ‘roups worked the same quarry. Given the great numbers of bricks being produced, any or all of these situations may have arisen, Tt can be argued that makers’ marks did not simply identify ephemeral parties of scattered Individuals who came together for a while to ‘make adobes and then disbanded. A chronolog- ical study of Huaca del Sol indicates that it AMERICAN ANTIQUITY vol. 40, No. 2, 1975 took more than a century to construct the platform (Hastings and Moseley 1975). At Sol there are numerous examples of the same ‘makers’ mark associated with the same soll type being employed from early through late con- struction phases. This continuity of symbol and soil over a long period implies makers’ marks identified groups that maintained their separate status over multiple generations Although the present index of marks and ‘counts of their relative frequencies is ineom- plete, the sample does show that some symbols. are much more prevalent than others. This may well indicate some groups of producers were larger than others and thus manufactured more adobes. In summary, the bricks for the Sol and Luna Huacas were manufactured by more than 100 separate groups of producers. It can be argued that these groups maintained their identity over extended periods of time, that they were of ‘unequal size, and that some quarried only one soil type while others employed several types. Historic Analogy After the Moche phase, bricks with makers marks were no longer produced. The next detailed information on adobes comes from a 1687 manuscript, Autos sobre la constnuccion de las murallas de Trujillo (Ganster 1973). During the Colonial period, pirate activity along the coast prompted the’ construction of defensive walls encircling the Spanish town of Trujillo in 1687. Built of adobes, the fortifications had a circumference of about 5.5 km and more than 100 thousand bricks probably went into the project. The bricks were produced primarily by the Indian population, and the 1687 document identifies eight native communities or reduc- ciones as suppliers. Four were located within the Moche Valley, and four communities were situated elsewhere. Presumably the outside communities each sent a separate work gang to the Trujillo region and produced bricks locally, rather than shipping the adobes in over long distances. The importance of the document is that it points to the community as the basic unit of organization and production of building materials. CONSTRUCTION Many ancient building projects are char- acterized by a feature best described as “seg~REPORTS. mentation.” This is the division of an otherwise homogeneous construction project into repeti- tive modular units. It is important in studying this phenomenon to establish that the construe- tion was homogeneous in nature so that sub- divisions cannot be attributed to requirements inherent in either the building materials or in the structural design. Segmentation has some- times been mistaken for remodeling, and some- times attributed to engineering against earth- quake shocks. However, it is not easily confused with remodeling, nor does it confer protection against earthquakes. Segmentation can be traced back in time for at least 1,600 years from the Chimu-lnca phase to the Gal- Tinazo phase. The phenomenon is recognizable in three types of construction: solid structures such as platform mounds; walled structures such as enclosures and compounds; and excava- tions such as canals Wall Construction Wall segmentation is particularly evident in the monumental architecture at Chan Chan Individual wall segments abutted one another but were never bonded at thelr points of juncture. Thus, vertical seams define the besin- ning and end’ of each sector, and each was essentially free standing. Segments within a single wall were generally of similar size, al though different walls had different sized se tions. Segments of about 1-2 m are typical of short walls, while in the great compounds and ciudadelas Segments may tun in excess of 4m. Here each end is set off by a bamboo pole incorporated within the wall and projecting slightly above the eroded wall top (Day 1974) ‘As noted, some wall segments used adobes with a high ‘carbonate content and are more eroded than adjacent sections. Brick dimensions exhibit variation between segments of a single wall, and adjoining wall segments were some- times built of different sized adobes. The sreaest variation les in the technique by which bricks were laid up. The general pattern was to place adobes in alternating courses of runner and header, but deviation from this norm was frequent. In fact, the workmanship can best be characterized as very haphazard, and the many kilometers of walls making up Chan Chan would not qualily as products of skilled masons. Poor quality work resulted ina situa- tion where the bricks and course patterning in 193 ‘contiguous wall segments were generally dif ferent. ‘The variation in soil types, adobe size, and. brick course patterning suggests that different wall segments were constructed by distinct work parties drawing on differing skills as well 1 materials, This interpretation of the Chan Chan data sees the building of a large wall as involving first the establishment of its course; second, a division of the course into sections; and third, the construction of different seg: ‘ments by distinct work parties. In the case of the great compounds, the wall course and its segments were demarcated by vertical poles. ‘Solid Construction ‘Segmentation in solid structures is apparent in both Huaca del Sol and de la Luna. It is most evident at Sol because the Moche River cut away part of the mound and exposed the interior of the platform. The Bishop Martinez ‘de Companon (Kosok 1965:93, Fig. 20) record: cd the segmented structure of Sol at the end of. the eighteenth century. Subsequently E. G. Squier (1877131) noted the phenomenon, Finally, W. C. Bennett (1949) mentions that the Sol segmentation might reflect ancient labor practices ‘The great size of Huaca del Sol was achieved cover a long period through multiple stages of construction. The adobes in a construction stage were not deposited as uniform, homo- geneous masonry. Rather, construction pro- ceeded in a segmented manner, with bricks being Isid up in “skins,” or long parallel rows several adobes wide, Contiguous skins were not bonded or joined together, and narrow seams separated one segment from another. Adjacent skins were generally of similar widths, but the range of variation was considerable (0.4-2.0 m in width). In something of a hierarchical pat- tem of segmenting, skins were often subdivided into nonbonded sections, with the result that some skins were laid up not as rows of bricks but as a series of tall rectangular columns of adobe. ‘There is a high, positive correlation between. segments, makers” marks, and brick soil type. The association breaks “down when reused adobes were employed along with new bricks, and there are cases where mixing is evident. Yet, 85.95% of the individual segments studied in detail were built of bricks of the same soil108 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY. type with the same makers’ mark. In turn, adjacent or nearby segments were constructed of other bricks with different marks. ‘The segmentation at Sol and Luna is most economically interpreted as a product of sepa- rate labor parties working at individual but repetitive tasks, The association of segments, brick symbols, and soils implies makers’ marks identified specific groups of individuals who not only produced adobes but transported them to the construction site and were then responsi ble for laying them up in particular segments This rests on the assumption that if marks identified only producers there would be no functional advantage in maintaining separate Tots of adobes at the construction site, nor in having different work parties constructing con- tiguous segments draw materials from separate brick lots. If this argument is correct it means that many distinct groups of people were contracted for the construction of the Sol and Luna platforms, and the contracts essentially called for production of a finished product (ie, ‘one or more completed segments) as well as the constituent construction materials PLANNING. It is important to show that sectioning was jot simply the accidental by-product of loosely coordinated work parties, but that it was inherent in the design and organization of construction. The coincidence of makers’ marks and segments in the Sol and Luna platforms and the demarcation of wall segments by poles at Chan Chan make it highly probable that sectioning was inherent in planning. However, the clearest evidence of such planning comes from an uncompleted project During Chimu times the Moche and Chicama Valleys were linked by a large canal some 70 km in length. Called the La Cumbre canal, this ntevalley conduit transported Chicama waters south to fields in the vicinity of Chan Chan. A detailed study by James S. Kus (personal communication) found that the Chimu en countered difficulties in bringing the canal across the wide intervalley divide. Labor parties working from both the Moche and Chicama directions sought to connect two legs of the canal just north of the divide. However, a small, rocky knoll made direct line-of-sight between the two canal-heads impossible. As a result, at least three abortive link-up canals were dug Vol, 40, No, 2, 1975 before achieving a connection with the proper gradient, Two of the attempted link-ups were about 1 km in length, while the third was somewhat shorter. The engineering error was recognized before any of the three were fully finished, and all three attempts exhibit the segmentation phenomenon. This isin the form of having completed canal sections of $0-70 m in length interspersed with unexcavated seg- ments. The latter segments were sometimes Gelineated by lines of stones along the sides of the projected course. ASSESSMENT OF THE MODEL, Although I am confident of the general applicability of the model, certain aspects have been easier to deal with than others, and this requires some assessment. Two phenomena, segmentation and makers’ marks, are comer- stones in the argument, and the implications of each are important. ‘That segmentation was inherent in planning of largescale projects is made highly probable by the intervalley canal, and further cor roborated by wall construction at Chan Chan. Insofar as segmentation confers no structural benefits on the design or engineering of canals, walls, or platforms, it is reasonable to attribute this phenomenon to principles of labor organ- ization. Differences in the building materials, pattern of construction, and quality of work manship between segments of the same project imply different work parties were responsible for different sections of construction. This leads to the conclusion that segments were specific tasks assigned to particular groups of individuals. tis with makers’ marks and the attempt t0 decipher the nature of the individual groups involved in construction that ambiguity arises. Analogy with the Trujillo defense wall implies that these groups were separate communities. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to posit that makers’ marks identified the adobes that were produced, transported, and laid up by members of specific prehistoric communities. Yet, while differences in soil types lend some support to this interpretation, the supporting evidence remains equivocal.” Thus, the attempt to a sociate specific groups with particular ter. ritories or ateas of the cultural landscape remains conjectural.REPORTS. This problem is affected by at least two factors, logistics and the definition of com- munity. Particularly large projects must have drawn on labor resources from a wide area. In the case of building materials it would have bbeen much easier to produce these in the vicinity of the construction site, rather than compound the logistical problems by hauling materials over long distances. Therefore, groups from diverse areas would end up making adabes from soils found near the building site, and brick composition would not reflect territorial distinctions. ‘At the definitional level, recognizing and identifying a prehistoric “community. pre- supposes knowledge of how the inhabitants of a region grouped themselves for particular pur- poses, Archaeological survey of the lower Moche Valley has isolated many sites that were Inhabited during the epoch when the Sol and Luna platforms were under construction. How- ever, the attempt to equate one site or group of sites’ with one makers’ mark and another settlement or group of settlements with another ‘mark becomes speculative. The problem is further compounded when dealing with construction at large sites that qualify as “regional centers.” For example, Chan Chan was the capital of an empire, and the settlement at Huacas del Sol and de la Luna probably also had extensive influence. Such centers could, and apparently did, draw on labor resources from outside the valley. In the case of makers’ marks a specific symbol might in theory identify the bricks made by residents of an adjacent valley, or a section of the valley, for a specific settlement within that valley. ‘Thus, the nature and composition of the social groups responsible for segments of a large-scale construction is not clear. COROLLARY HYPOTHESIS The Moche Valley model of organizational principles is compatible with the hypothesis that manpower was mobilized by means of a labor tax system. In other words, during ‘construction the work performed by a party or social group was carried out as fulfillment of obligatory support owed to the authority initiating and sanctioning the project. In specific terms this argument would see ‘makers’ marks as identifying social units given separate status for taxation purposes, and seg- 195 ments as the units or measures of labor by ‘which tax obligations were paid ‘A number of lines of evidence can be mustered in support of this hypothesis. Fist complex societies that have well developed political systems but lack standardized mone- tary systems, taxes are frequently paid by labor. Second, in the Andean area there is ample evidence of a labor tax organization in the form of the Inca mit’a system. Third, during the period of Inca control of the Moche Valley a number of largescale projects were undertaken, none of which basically differ from ‘earlier Chimu undertakings. That the mira ora closely related system was in local use is indicated by the fact that the Spanish took over an indigenous labor tax organization during the founding of Trujillo (Ganster 1972). Here, continuity in Spanish, Inca, and Chimu con- struction techniques points to continuity in ‘organizational systems, CONCLUSIONS My purpose has been to develop a model of the organizational principles used to coordinate and mobilize the labor resources required for the execution of large-scale construction pro- jects. Using the phenomena of segmentation and makers’ marks, as well as other lines of evidence, I have argued for a mit'a or mir alike system. IF this argument is correct, and if the segmentation proves to be a hallmark of this system, then the mit’a labor tax so often identified with the Inca was actually a late manifestation of a very longstanding organiza tional practice. Acknowledgments. ‘The research underlying. this paper was supported by grants from the National ‘Geographic Society and the National Science Founda tion. The data were collected by staf members of the Chan Chan-Moche Valley Project. C. Mansfeld Hast- Ings warrants special acknowledgment for materials pertaining to Huacas del Sol and de la Luna. T have Aso placed considerable reliance on information col- lected by Kent C. Day, Paul B. Ganster, and James S. Kes Bennett, Wendell 1945. Enginesing. In Handbook of South Amesi an Indians, Vol. 5, edited by Julian H. Steward. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 14353466, Day, Kent C, 1974" Monumental architecture at Chan Chan, Peru: ciudadelas and compounds. UnpublishedPhD. dissertation, Department of Anthro- pology, Harvard University Ganster, Paul B. 1972. Settlement pattems in the Moche Valley during the Colonial period. Manuscript 1973" Report on the construction of the Trujillo defensive walls, 1686-1688. Manuscript Hastings, C-M., and ME. Moseley AMERICAN ANTIQUITY. (Vol. 40, No. 2, 1975 1975 The adobes of Husca del Sol and Huaca de Ta Luna. American Antiquity 40:196-203, Kosok, Paul 1968 Life, land and water in ancient Per. Long Teland University Pres, New York, Squier, Ephraim Georse 1877 Peru incidents of travel and exploration in ‘the land of the Incas, Harpers, New York. THE ADOBES OF HUACA DEL SOL ‘AND HUACA DE LA LUNA C. MANSFIELD HasTINs. M.EDWARD MOSELEY Mad bricks in Huaca del Sol and Huace de le Lune differ tn soll composition, dimensions, mold marks, and ‘makers’ marks. ‘The differences reflect conditions of brick production and use, and some. variables are Chronologically significant. This paper discusses the archaeologeal significance of adobes im these platform ‘mounds, located on the south side of the Moche Valley. Four brick variables soll, dimensions, mold, and ‘makers marks-are examined in terms of pattems of associations UNITS OF ASSOCIATION The construction of the two huacas was characterized by periods of building followed by periods of summit use and then renewed building. We use construction stages and their subdivisions to establish units of association. Information on. building stages, as well as bricks, comes largely from examination of excavations left by looters. Therefore, our sample of both building events and bricks is small, and much information is either not exposed to view or has been destroyed. Huaca del Sol Measuring at least 342 m by more than 159 1m, Huaca del Sol was the largest brick structure in'South America. It was probably cross-shaped in plan and had four sections numbered 1 through 4 from north to south (Fig. 1), Colonial period looters used the Moche river to wash away at least two thirds of the mound. In Section 2 this produced a profile 28 m high, in which eight construction stages are_ visible ‘These are number I through VIII from bottom to top. Stage V produced a burial with Moche Phase III ceramics, and Stage VII had a tomb with Phase IV ceramics (Moseley et al. 1973). Section 1 was built after Section 2 and is treated as a unit of associated bricks. The south side of Section 4 was covered with a facade of bricks about 4 m thick, and this forms another adobe assemblage Fig. 1. Plan of Huaca del Sol, The dashed tine Indicates the projected original dimensions prior to Colonial destruction. Sections are numbered 14 for reference inthe text