Society for American Archaeology

The Chimú Sculptures of Huacas Tacaynamo and El Dragon, Moche Valley, Perú
Author(s): Margaret A. Jackson
Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 298-322
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4141576
Accessed: 22/09/2008 11:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR'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/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE CHIMU SCULPTURES OF HUACAS TACAYNAMOAND
EL DRAGON, MOCHE VALLEY, PERU

MargaretA. Jackson

A corpus of woodenfigures archaeologically recoveredfrom the Huacas Tacaynamoand El Dragdn (also knownas Huaca
Arco Iris) at Chan Chan in the Moche Valley,Peru,forms the basis for this inquiry into the role and finction of
Chiml
woodenfigure sculpture.Althoughthe sculptureswere excavatedfrom a disturbedcontext, they representan importantbody
of evidence relating to two problematic architectural complexes. The author places this group of figures within the tempo-
ral sequence of the region and defines the specific attributesof each sculpture to clarify social function. In reconciling the
architecture'srelationship to the Chimnti capital city, Chan Chan, and temporallyplacing the sites as Early Chimau, thefig-
ures are realigned within the larger artistic traditions of Pert•'sNorth Coast. I suggest that the sculptures were part of a
coherent artistic program that was integrallylinked to the religious andfunerary purpose of the architecture.More specif-
ically, these characters depict scenes of socially prescribed ritual activities, including the intermentof an importantper-
son whosefuneral procession was attended by various servitors, and the celebration or consecration of burial throughthe
sacrifice of prisoners.

Un cuerpodistintodefiguras de maderarecuperadoarqueoldgicamentede las Huacas Tacaynamoy El Drag6n (tambidncono-

cida como HuacaArcoIris) en el Vallede Moche,Pera,forma la base para esta investigacio'nde la de esculturaChimd.
funcidn
Aunquelas esculturasfueron excavadas de un contextoperturbado,estas representanun grupo de evidencias importantes
relacionadosa estos dos complejosarquitect6nicosproblemrnticos. La autora busca colocar el arte en su lugar apropiadoden-
tro la sucesidn temporalde la regidny definirlos atributosespecificos de cada esculturaindividualpara clarificar la funcidn
social de este arte. Reconciliandola relacidnentre istos dos huacas y la ciudadprincipal de los Chimii,Chan Chan, el arte
se realinea dentrode las tradicionesartisticas mdisgrandes de la Costa Norte de Peru'.Se sugiere que las esculturasde las
Huacas Tacaynamoy El Drag6nformabanparte de unprogramaartistico coherentequefue llevado a cab6 integralmentecon
el propdsito religioso yfunerario de la arquitectura.El grupo de personajes mostrabanescenas de ritualesfunerarios,con el
entierrode una persona importanteasistida por varios servidores,cuyas reglas eran dictadaspor la sociedad Chimul.

woremarkable in Valley.The remainsof theirmaterialcultures,pre-

groupslivedsuccessively
the southernvalleys of the NorthCoast of
Peni priorto the Incaconquest:the Moche
(A.D. 1-800), knownfor theirmassivepyramids
andtheirelaboratelymodeledandpaintedceram-
ics, and,aftera transitionalMiddleHorizonperiod,
the Chimdt(ca. A.D. 900-1470), membersof a
Late Intermediateperiod polity whose immense
royal compoundsformed the core of one of the
largesturbancentersin precolumbianSouthAmer-
ica. Whilethe Moche seem to havehadessentially
confederationsof related,alliedpolities (Pillsbury
2001:9-12) and the Chimtia more stronglycen-
tralizedstate(Keatinge1982:197),the militarism
andreligionof bothgroupsdominatedtheirspheres
of influenceandeachhada capitalcityin theMoche
sent throughoutthe areain the form of monumen-
tal architectureandelaborateartworks,areclearly
distinctfromeachother,but,nevertheless,attestto
a significantlevel of culturalcontinuityfrom one
epoch to the next.
Approximately50 years ago the firstfew of a
distinctive group of prehispanicwooden figure
sculptureswere recoveredfrom two small, trun-
cated pyramidsin the Moche Valley.Also known
as huacas, these structures are located on the
peripheryof the ChimLicapital,ChanChan (Fig-
ure 1).Thetwo structures, onenamedHuacaTacay-
namo andthe otherHuacaEl Drag6n,only 500 m
apart,have been the scenes of severalarchaeolog-
ical investigationsthathave yielded an increasing

Margaret A. Jackson 0 Departmentof Art andArt History and Lowe Art Museum,Universityof Miami, 1540 Levante
Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33124

LatinAmericanAntiquity, 15(3), 2004, pp. 298-322

Copyright@2004 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

298
 CHIMUSCULPTURES OF HUACAS TACAYNAMOAND EL DRAGON
MOCHE PERU
VALLEY,
El
Dragon
Tacaynamo
Chan
Chan1
0 1 2 3 4 5 Km.
Figure 1. Map of Moche Valley indicating location of Huacas Tacaynamo and El Drag6n (drawing by M. Jackson).
numberof woodensculptures.Sadly,however,the
huacas sufferedsevere damagefrom looters, and
the sculpturesthemselveswereexcavatedfromdis-
turbedcontexts, makingtheir originalplacement
withinthe architectureuncertain.Establishingthe
relationshipof the sculpturesto each otherand to
the architectureis an importantcomponentof the
presentstudy.
RichardSchaedel(1951, 1966) was the firstto
conduct large-scale excavations at Huaca El
Drag6n and preliminarytesting at Huaca Tacay-
namoin 1948-1950. He wasfollowedby Francisco
Iriartein 1969, who undertooka restorationof
HuacaEl Drag6nandexcavationsat HuacaTacay-
namo(1969, 1976).Furtherexcavationswerecom-
pleted at HuacaTacaynamoby Hugo Navarroin
1986 (1988, 1990) andin 1987 by EdgardoSilva.
Each scholarinterpretedthe sculptureswithinthe
contextof his own archaeologicalfindings,butno
studyhas yet attempteda comprehensiveinterpre-
tation of the figures, nor has their iconographic
contentbeenassessedin relationto thelargersculp-
turaltraditionof the region.
The presentresearchaims to clarifythe mean-
299
PERU
Moche
Valey
NTrujillo-.
r
PacificOcean
'
Moche
River
ing andcontextof these wood figuresby integrat-
ing new scholarshipconcerningthe North Coast
regionwithearlierfindings.I suggestthatthesculp-
tures were intendedto be viewed togetherand to
depictgroupsof specificcharactersengagedin rit-
ual activitiesthatweredirectlyrelatedto the funer-
aryandoffertoryfunctionsof the huacas,whichin
turn served an overarchingideology of ancestor
worshipandvenerationof thedead.Centralto this
interpretationis the idea that some fundamental
matrixof culturalcontinuitybetween the Moche
andChimuiperiodsservedto shapeandinformthe
artwork.
Key to any assessmentof the meaningandpur-
pose are identificationsof the charactersdepicted
andanunderstanding of thearchaeologicalcontext
in whichthe sculptureswere found.It is generally
agreed that the wooden sculptures conform to
Chimud artisticcanons, as describedbelow. How-
ever,theyalso incorporatelocalMocheprecedents,
which serve as useful points of comparison.The
attributionof the huacas is somewhatmore con-
tested,as thetwo structureswereoriginallythought
to have had a Middle Horizonconstructiondate,
300 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
Table 1. Provenienceof ChimtiWooden Sculpturesin this Study.
Complete Figure
Name of figures from fragmentsfrom
Excavator El Drag6n El Drag6n
Schaedel 25 1-2
Iriarte 3 18
Navarro
Silva
makingthem considerablyearlierthan what was
thought to be the Chimti time period (Schaedel
1951, 1966).
The initialperceptionof a temporaldisjunction
betweenthesculpturesandthearchitectural setting
in which they were found has, until now, discour-
aged in-depthscholarshipon the wooden statues.
Earlierscholarshiptended to regardthe Middle
Horizonas a distinctculturalepoch in the Moche
region.Overtime,however,it hasbecomeincreas-
ingly clearthatthe finalphases of Moche and the
earlymanifestationsof ChimdtoverlappedtheMid-
dle Horizontime framesignificantly,with only a
very limited intrusion of highlanders (Castillo
2000:143, 2001:309; Kolata 1982:83; Mackey
1982:321-331; Rodman and Fernandez 2000:
119-130; Topic 1982:280-284). Incorporating
more recent scholarshipon the Middle Horizon
transition,a reassessmentof evidence concerning
the sites'architectural
formandtemporalplacement
accompaniesthe discussionof the sculpturesand
leads to the conclusion that the buildings them-
selves were of Chimiiconstruction,ratherthanof
any discreteor intrusiveMiddleHorizongroup.
The Sculptures
The core group of sculpturesused for this study
consists of 53 carvedwoodenfigures,25 of which
were foundat HuacaTacaynamoand 28 at Huaca
El Drag6n(Table1), plus threewoodenlitters,two
fromTacaynamoandone fromEl Drag6n.In total,
37 pieces were photographed,some of which are
partialfigures.Additionally,varioussmallerfrag-
ments of figures, such as hands and feet, were
recoveredduringexcavation.The minimumnum-
ber of complete or almost complete sculptures
recoveredby Schaedelat El Drag6nwas 25, with
one or two morein smallfragments.Iriarterecov-
eredthreefiguresatEl Drag6n,whileatTacaynamo
he encountered18 figures,plus two or threemore
[Vol.15, No. 3, 2004
Complete Figure
figures from fragmentsfrom
Tacaynamo Tacaynamo
2-3
4 1-2
3 2-3
in fragments.Navarrorecoveredfoursculpturesat
Tacaynamo,with one or two more in fragments,
and Silva found three figures, with two to three
more in fragments.Additional sculptures were
probablylooted, lost, or destroyed.A comprehen-
sive catalogcompiledby theauthor(Jackson1991)
enumerating each sculpture's dimensions and
details forms the basis of the presentdiscussion;
these dataare summarizedin the Appendix.
Both male and female figuresarerepresented,
eitheras free-standingfiguresorcarvedatopstaffs.
Averaging30 to 40 cm in height,the figures'poses
andgesturesarestiff andhighlystylized.Although
humanin form,theyhavedisproportionately large
headswith flat,mask-likefaces.Appendagessuch
as arms and legs tend to be short and minimal.
Some concernis shown for the articulationof key
details, such as specific handgestures.All figures
wearheaddresses(eithertrapezoidalorround),and
these aregivenconsiderableattention.None of the
figures has a neck, nor do they wear shoes.
Although variationof poses is limited (most are
shownstandingorseatedcross-legged),manyhold
inlaidbowls or otherobjects.
Based upon excavationreports,the sculptures
seem to be carvedof algarrobo(mesquite)orbalsa
wood, althoughthis is not conclusivewithoutlab-
oratoryanalysis.Willowwood is also a possibility.
In the present sculptural group, no correlation
betweenchoiceof wood andiconographyis imme-
diately apparent.Details, such as loincloths, ear-
spools,andheaddresseswereoftenindicated,either
painted(the most common colors are red, white,
black, and yellow) or inlaidwith mother-of-pearl,
pink/redSpondylusshell,orblackhardwood;addi-
tionally, a few figures are covered with feathers
and copperor bronzedisks.
Specificmarkingsmayhavefunctionedto sym-
bolize rank,position,or family.The mostcommon
Chimtimotifsembellishingthe figuresarestanding
or divingpelicans,the Chimtifeather,the fish pat-
Jackson] ANDEL DRAGON
CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACASTACAYNAMO 301

Figure 2. Chimu motifs: (a) standing pelican (ca. 4 cm tall); (b) diving pelican (ca. 4 cm tall); (c) Chimu feather (ca. 2.5
cm tall); (d) fish (ca. 3 cm tall); (e) cormorants (ca. 3 cm tall) (photographs M. Jackson).

tern(allas in Rowe 1984),andthedivingcormorant mentsmighthavebeen offerings,as has been sug-

distinguishedby its straight-necked"hawk"posture
(Benson1995)(Figure2). Othershavea simplepat-
tern of dots or stripes.Additionally,it seems that
someof thefigurescouldhavebeenintendedto wear
cloth clothing.Miniatureloinclothsandtunicsof a
size appropriateto fit the sculptureswere foundat
both sites (Iriarte1976; Schaedel 1951). Some of
the sculpturesmay have been clothed,or the gar-
gestedfortheminiaturetextilesof Pacatnamu (Don-
nan and Cock 1986). Most of the figures evince
tracesof red cinnabarpainton the face, although
severalare eroded.In keeping with Chimfiburial
practiceandthe long-establishedAndeantradition
of paintingmummy masks with cinnabar(Jones
1979), the presenceof cinnabarhere suggeststhat
the sculpturesserveda funeraryfunction.
302 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
The Huacas
One of the greatestobstaclesto the interpretation
of thesculptureshasbeena lackof informationcon-
cerningthe contextsin which they were used, evi-
dence by which theirimagerycould be evaluated.
In discussing the burialsat El Drag6n, Schaedel
(1966:443) stated that he was "predisposedto
attributethe great majorityof the burialsto the
Chimiioccupationand to discountthe possibility
thatthe huacahad a basicallyfuneraryfunctionat
its inception."Inbasinghis assertionuponthebelief
thatthe majorportionof the architecturalstructure
was of "MiddleHorizon/Tiahuanacoid" construc-
tion,theburials,whose contentsclearlyassociated
themwiththe Chimdiperiod,couldonly havebeen
intrusive (i.e., secondary).The assignment of a
MiddleHorizonconstructiondateandstyle forms
the underlyingbasis for Schaedel'sinterpretations
of the othermaterialshe recoveredand structures
many subsequent interpretations by Iriarte,
Navarro,and Silva.
HuacaEl Drag6nwas firstmentionedby Bal-
tazarJaimeMartinezCompafi6nin the eighteenth
century(LopezSerrano1976),withoccasionalref-
erencesby latertravelers(RiveroandTschudi1855;
Squier1973 [ 1877]).By the beginningof this cen-
turybothhuacashadbeen severelylooted,leaving
largeareasof the sites damaged.The namesof the
two truncatedpyramidshave changedover time.
HuacaEl Drag6nis also knownas HuacaArco Iris
(Iriarte1969)andoccasionallyreferredto as Huaca
Cienpies(Horkheimer1944).Iriarte(1976) reports
thatthe local, presumablyMuchiclanguagename
for HuacaTacaynamowas Chore.
Both edifices are essentially square, stepped
platformsconstructedof adobebricks.Eachhas a
centralcoresurroundedby highwalls andanupper
platform approached by means of a ramp. At
HuacaEl Drag6nthe mainplatformis surrounded
on three sides by a series of 14 lower chambers
(sometimesreferredto as cells), while the archi-
tectureof HuacaTacaynamois less well defined.
Because HuacaEl Drag6nhas undergoneexten-
sive restorationwork,its architecturalfeaturesare
betterunderstoodthanthoseof HuacaTacaynamo,
which has been the subjectof more limitedexca-
vationefforts.Both had exteriorpanelsdecorated
with low relief friezes made of paintedmud plas-
ter and carvedadobe.
[Vol.15, No. 3, 2004
TemporalPlacement of the Architecture
Most scholarsrecognize thatHuacasTacaynamo
andEl Drag6nareperipheralpartsof ChanChan.
Yet, because some doubtlingers as to whetheror
notthestructuresareof Chimtiorigin-having pre-
viously been labeled "Tiahuanacoid," a label that
has resultedin confusion-the huacas haverarely
been examinedwithinthe contextof otherChimd
studies undertakenat Chan Chan. The earliest
assessmentsof thehuacasclassifyingthemas Mid-
dle Horizonwerebaseduponinterpretations of var-
ious chronologiesof materialremainsavailablein
the late 1940s and 1950s (Bennett 1939; Collier
1955: Ford 1949; Kroeber1925, 1930; Schaedel
1959; Willey 1953). In light of more recentfind-
ings, I suggestthatbothEl Drag6nandTacaynamo
hada somewhatlaterconstructiondatethanprevi-
ously thoughtand a local culturalassociation.
Previous interpretationsof the sites' ceramic
assemblageswere stronglyinfluencedby the pres-
ence of a ceramictype knownas Tri-Color,as well
as by the presenceof particularblackwareshapes
and motifs. Originallythese were categorizedas
Tiahuanacoid,exotic to the NorthCoastanddiag-
nostic of highlandinfluence(Collier 1955; Kroe-
ber 1930;Schaedel1959, 1966).Yet,subsequently,
boththeubiquitousblackwareandTri-Colorwares
were judged to be of local origin (Donnan and
Mackey 1978;Mackey 1982).AlthoughTri-Color
was presentatbothhuacas,theceramicsrecovered
from the sites were overwhelminglyof the black-
warestyle (Navarro1990) andsolidlyindicativeof
Chimtimanufacture(Donnanand Mackey 1978).
An analysis of adobe bricks also supportsa
Chimticonstructiondatefor the huacas. Schaedel
(1966) states that the brick type most frequently
found at El Drag6nwas rectangular(28 x 15 x 15
cm, roughlythe same heightas width).According
to AlanKolata's(1982) adobeseriationfromChan
Chan,HuacaEl Drag6n'sbricktype would corre-
spondto thatwhichhe calls "squareended"(those
brickswith a 1:1 height:widthratio).The adobes
atTacaynamoarecharacteristically similarto those
thatKolatawouldclassify as "flat,"thatis, theyare
not as tall as theyarewide (Jackson1991;Navarro
1990).Iriarte(1976) assertsthatHuacaTacaynamo
hadan earlyChimtiassociation.Kolata'sseriation
corroboratesthe idea; his model suggests that
Huaca Tacaynamo'sflat bricks would belong to
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACASTACAYNAMO
the EarlyChimdtperiod,with HuacaEl Drag6n's
squareendedbricksbeing somewhatlater.
Pillsbury's(1993) workon the sculptedfriezes
of ChanChanreinforcesthe temporalassignment
indicatedby adobeseriation,with the friezes of El
Drag6n showing a mixtureof additivemodeling
andsubtractivecarvingtechniquescharacteristic of
the Early Chimuiperiod.Althoughthe friezes of
Tacaynamoareinconclusivedue to theirdamaged
condition,the iconographyof the friezes at Huaca
El Drag6n,dominatedby a bicephalicarc motif,
fits easily into the overall repertoireof Chimui
imageryandshouldnot necessarilybe regardedas
exoticto theregion.If we acceptDonnan's(1990b)
premise that the friezes at Chotuna(in the Lam-
bayequeValley) are copied from motifs found at
Huaca El Dragon, then Huaca El Drag6n could
dateno laterthanthe MiddleChimuiphase,which
at Chotunawas approximatelyA.D. 1100 to 1350.
As a result of these analyses, the architectural,
archaeological,and artisticevidence supportsthe
conclusionthatboth sites shouldbe consideredas
partof the Early(or at the latest, Middle) Chimil
tradition.Thisattribution,
accordingto currentdata,
wouldcorrespondroughlyto the tenthor eleventh
century A.D. (Mackey 1982:330; Moseley
1982:table1.1).
Sculptural Groupings
At some pointin the historyof bothhuacas, prob-
ablyduringthe colonialperiod,the centralportion
of each platformwas gutted. Rubble and debris
werethrownoverthe sideintothecorridorbetween
the platformandthe retainingwall. The sculptures
were found in a disturbedcontext in the corridor
and chamberareasof both sites when this debris
was cleared. Schaedel (1966) concluded that
becausethe sculptureswere foundin all butone of
the lower chambers,theirprobableoriginalloca-
tion was in thechambers.Contraryto this,Navarro
(1988) suggestedthatthe sculpturesatTacaynamo
wereoriginallyplacedon theupperplatformwithin
some sortof ephemeralstructurethatis now indis-
cernible.Withoutfurtherinformation,the original
placementof the sculpturescannotbe ascertained,
norcan the relationshipof the figuresto each other
be archaeologicallyproven.
Other evidence, however, suggests that the
wooden figuresalmostcertainlywere intendedto
ANDEL DRAGON 303
be seen in relationto each other,bothas iconic ref-
erentsto specific social roles and in a seminarra-
tive manner,even thoughthereare only a limited
numberof precedentsin Chimdlartfor sculptures
forminginterrelatedgroups.The most significant
examplesof groupedsculpturesareseveralChim6i
miniaturetableaux,referredto as "maquettes," that
were found as part of two Chimuiburialsin the
Huaca de La Luna (Uceda et al. 1997:151-176,
213-238). These remarkablesculpturesdepict a
cast of characters,highly similarto thosepresently
underdiscussionbutconsiderablysmaller,thatare
sewn onto canvas bases. The diminutivefigures
appearto be engagedin ceremonialactivitiesand
processions.One tableauis an architectural model
depicting a miniatureburialplatformand plaza,
which Uceda et al. (1997:151) liken to those of
ChanChan.Insidethe model, 26 tiny wooden fig-
uresand 10 otherminiatureobjectswerecarefully
arranged,including seated females wrapped as
mummies, standingfigures, processionalfigures
bringingofferings,andhunchbacksandmusicians
playingflutesand drums(Figure3). Additionally,
fiveotherscenescomposedof woodenfiguressewn
onto cloth-covered bases depict two funeral
corteges,a sceneof humansacrifice,a sceneof sev-
eral llamasand theircaretaker,and numerousfig-
ures carrying probable funerary offerings. The
subjectmatterof thesetableaux,combinedwiththe
contextin whichthey were found,underscoresthe
funerarycharacterof this type of sculpture.
Although the exact placementof the wooden
sculptureswithin the sites of HuacasTacaynamo
andEl Drag6nis notknown,theHuacade La Luna
maquettesarecentralto theargumentthatthistype
of wooden sculpturewas intendedto be seen in
relatedgroupings.ThefactthattheTacaynamoand
El Drag6nsculpturesdo not appearto have been
attachedto anysortof base, while the Huacade La
Lunapieces weresewnontocloth,suggestsfurther
thatthe architectureof the two huacas themselves
may have been envisioned as the larger setting
evokedby the sculpturalrepresentations.
Schaedelcalledthe sculpturesof HuacasTacay-
namo and El Drag6n"idols,"suggestingthatthey
may have been venerated as deities (Schaedel
1951). Iriarte(1976) proposedthat the idols had
narrativeuse as "marionettes,"representingand
acting out scenes within a sacred space atop the
platforms.A narrativestructureis impliedby the
304 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 15, No. 3, 2004

Figure 3. Chimuimaquettefrom Huaca de La Luna. Miniature wooden figurines average roughly 10 cm in height (pho-
tograph M. Jackson).

figures'poses. This, in combinationwith the high Ratherthantreatthemas representations of indi-

degree of similarityamong the figures,theircon-
ceptualresemblanceto the Chim6maquettes,and
what can be deduced about the identities of the
charactersthemselves(see below),makeit unlikely
that the sculpturesof HuacasTacaynamoand El
Drag6nwere worshippedas idols.
vidual deities, I suggest they form a specific cast
of charactersengaged in scenes of socially pre-
scribedritualactivities.The scenesdepictedcanbe
interpretedas:(1) theintermentof animportantper-
son whose funeralprocessionwas attendedby var-
ious servitors, and (2) the ritual celebration or
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACASTACAYNAMO
consecrationof burialthroughthe sacrificeof one
or moreprisoners.
MocheArtisticAntecedents
The notionof a decisive social breakbetweenthe
Moche andthe Chimdculturesbiasedinitialinter-
pretationsof the sculptures'meaningandfunction,
in effect separatingthe sculpturesfromany possi-
ble connectionto a continuousartistictradition.A
culturalrupturewas proposedas a resultof the col-
lapse of the Moche statebroughtaboutby an inva-
sion, aroundtheeighthcenturyA.D., by thecentral
highlandpolity,Wari(Menzel 1977; Rowe 1948;
Schaedel 1959, 1966). As previously discussed,
however,earliermodelspositinga totalsocial col-
lapseandsubsequentdominationbyWarimayhave
overstatedthe case. Eventhoughclearevidenceof
significantsocial upheavalbetween the two peri-
ods exists, suchas changesin burialpatterns,alter-
nateexplanationsfor social changesthatoccurred
duringthe MiddleHorizonaremorefitting(Baw-
den 1982; Castillo 2001; Mackey 1982; Moseley
1992). While certain social institutionschanged
(perhapsradically),culturalcontinuitybetweenthe
Moche and Chimdiperiodscan be arguedat sev-
eralfundamentallevels,andmanyelementsof con-
tinuityareobservablein artand architecture.
Moche pictorialconventions included a high
degreeof stylizationand widespreadstandardiza-
tionof motifsthroughoutthePeruvianNorthCoast.
Likewise,Chimtiartworkincorporated widespread
standardization of particularmotifs,albeitless well
understoodby modem scholarsthan those of the
Moche. In the Moche pictorialrepertoire,specific
characterswere so well knownthatthey could be
representedby theirparticulariconographicattrib-
utes alone (Benson 1974; Castillo 1989; Donnan
1978; Hocquenghem1987; Jackson2000). I sug-
gest thatseveralof theserelativelystandardized,or
iconic, characterscontinuedto be partof an active
pictorialrepertoirewell into Chimfitimes.
It hasbeen demonstrated,for example,thatcer-
tain characters,activities,and social roles shown
in Moche art refer to actual people and events
(Bourget2001;Donnan1988;DonnanandCastillo
1992). Scenes like the well-known Presentation
Theme(Donnan1978:158),also knownas theSac-
rifice Scene, show a recognizablecast of charac-
ters identifiable by various costumes and
accoutrements.The centralactivityis the sacrifice
ANDEL DRAGON 305
of prisonersand the presentationof a goblet to a
principalfigure. Role and status is recognizable
regardlessof mediathroughuse of very particular
artisticelements.Becauseof theiconographicstan-
dardizationemployedby theMoche, the Presenta-
tion Theme providesan excellent referencepoint
for comparisonwith the presentbody of
Chimti
sculpture.Ritualpresentationof offeringsandthe
sacrifice of prisonerswere culturalpracticesthat
continuedfrom one epoch to the next, forming a
significantpointof culturalcontinuityto whichthe
sculpturesbearwitness.Additionally,iconographic
standardization as a meansof identifyingparticu-
lar roles or offices also seems to have been an
importantculturalcarryover.
Specific Characters
The 53 figuresand threelittersrecoveredat Hua-
cas Tacaynamoand El Drag6n,as summarizedin
the Appendix,aredividedinto the following cate-
gories:littercarriers,witheithertherightortheleft
handraised;litters;maleandfemalehunchbackfig-
ures,eitherseatedorstanding;seatednudefemales;
bound male prisoners;tumi/knifeholders,which
are figureswith a slottedhole in theirrighthand;
offertoryfiguresmakinga recurring,perhapsstan-
dardgestureof offeringor obeisance;jar bearers
carryingjars with a tumplineacrossthe forehead;
andindeterminate figures,thesignificanceof whose
gestures are unclear.
Among all the wood figures,the littercarriers'
role is the least ambiguous. The study group
includes 14 of these (Figure4). The most gener-
ally recognizabletraitof the littercarriersis that
the rightor left armis raised,with the correspond-
ing shouldernotchedto allow insertionof a litter
pole. Some have small perforationsin the finger-
tips, with bits of twine still in place. These litter
carrierswereprobablycarvedin quartets,butwere
at least madein pairs.
All have a trapezoidalheaddress,apparentlya
male gender-specificcostume element. This par-
ticularheaddresscorrelateswell withextantChimfi
headdresses,suchasthelargecylindricalgoldcrown
with stylized plumes illustrated by Bennett
(1954:frontispiece),or thebrightlyfeatheredcylin-
dricalcrownsillustratedbyAnneRowe(1984:Plate
24, Figure156).BecauseChimtiartisticconventions
tendedto flattenthree-dimensional forms,the row
of verticallines acrossthetop of the sculptedhead-
306 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 15, No. 3, 2004

Figure 4. Litter carriers: These male figures have one arm raised, wear distinctive trapezoidal hats with double tassels
in back, and often have particular motifs painted or inlaid on the torso. (a) SIL3; (b) NAV1; (c) PV246/5; (d) PV246/56;
(e) PV246/60; (f) PV246/64 (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix for provenience key).

dresses probably denotes feathers. These head-
dressesgenerallyhave two horizontalbandssepa-
rated by a particularmotif, with double tassels
hanging down the back. There are Moche
antecedentsfordepictionsof thisstyleof headdress;
for example,in the PresentationTheme (Donnan
1978:158),FigureE is shownwearingone.
The headdressis seen on figuresotherthanlit-
ter carriers,and so cannotbe consideredan iden-
tifier of a particularoccupation.Yet, one of the
benefitsof rankin Andeansociety was the privi-
lege of ridingin a litter-a markof statusthatwas
as validforthe Chimiias fortheMoche-and even
carryingthe litterof a royalpersonwas a markof
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURES OF HUACAS TACAYNAMOAND EL DRAGON 307

Figure 5. Litters: (a) PV246/47, inlaid backrest with Spondylus diver motif; (b) PV246/47, detail of inlay; (c) El Drag6n
litter backrest (ID number missing), inlaid with anthropomorphized wave motif; (d) PV246/31, painted backrest; (e) El
Drag6n litter (ID number missing), detail of wave motif (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix for prove-
nience key).

socialstanding(Donnan1990a).Thus,we caninfer Tacaynamoand El Drag6n(Figure5). Two of the

thatit may havebeen an indicatorof some special
rankheld by these servitors.
The litterscarriedat HuacasTacaynamoandEl
Drag6nwere roughlysquare,borneby long poles
on both sides. They differfrom those depictedin
the Huacade la Luna maquettes,which are pod-
shaped with a single carrierat either end. Three
smalllitterbackrestswere recoveredfromHuacas
litterswereonce heavilyinlaidwithmarinemotifs.
One has a repetitivemotif featuringa frontalfig-
ure wearinga crescentheaddressflankedby two
small divers attachedby ropes (Pillsbury 1996)
(Figure 5b). The second litter shows an intricate
central design, with a figure wearing a crescent
headdress and a repetitiveborderfeaturingtwo
fishermenseated on totora (reed) boats facing a
308 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
captive fish (some type of ray or perhaps an
angelote fish); they are flankedon either side by
anthropomorphized waves (Figures 5c, 5e). The
thirdlitteris uncarvedwithno embellishmentother
thanred paint.
Amongthe Chimdandinto the colonialperiod,
litterssuch as these were used in a funerarycon-
text to carry the deceased. They were actually
buried along with the mummy bundle in some
instances (Kroeber 1954; Lopez Serano 1976).
Judgingby theirscale, the littersrecoveredat Hua-
cas TacaynamoandEl Drag6ncould not havecar-
ried an adult,butwere intendedto carryperhapsa
small child, a figurine,or some othereffigy.
The groupin this studyincludesseven hunch-
backfigures,bothmale andfemale (Figures6 and
7). All but one hold bowls, and this characteristic
seems to have been an identifyingaspect of their
role. The function of the gesture is offertory.
Numerousexamplesof this type of Chimtibowl,
from simple gourdsto elaborateinlaid wood and
engravedmetal,have survivedin graves.
Althoughthe attributionof genderis somewhat
problematic-only figureswith recognizablegen-
italiacan be unequivocallysexed-gender assign-
ment,with a few notableexceptions,is herebased
on costume elements and similarity to figures
whose gender assignmentis clear. In particular,
femalefiguresareassociatedwithround-tophead-
dresses,while males areassociatedwith the trape-
zoidal headdressesand loincloths. Of the entire
group,ninesculptureshaverecognizablegenitalia,
threeareundoubtedlymale, and six arefemale.
The hunchbackedcharactersseem to represent
importantroles not specificallylimitedto one gen-
der. Hunchbacksoften occupied a special social
position throughoutthe aboriginalAmericasand
were frequently associated with the shamanic
priestly classes and class-stratifiedceremonials
(Schaedel 1966:451). It is likely thatthese repre-
sent religiouspractitioners,priestsor priestesses.
This interpretationis supportedby the surface
treatmentof the three female hunchbackfigures,
who show signs of havingonce been coveredwith
feathersandsmallmetaldisks (Figure6). All were
foundatHuacaEl Drag6n(althougha similarhead
fragmentwas retrievedfromTacaynamo,suggest-
ing that both sites includedthis sculpturaltype).
Eachhas bracelets(or tattoos)on bothwristsindi-
catedby inlaysof darkwoodandwhiteshell,show-
[Vol.15, No. 3, 2004
ing rollingwave,zigzag, ordiamondmotifs.Rows
of perforationsline the foreheadsof the female
Chimuisculptures, giving the impression that
almost certainlysome additionalheadgear(now
missing) was attachedto them.
The presenceof featherson the bodies of the
femalehunchbacksculpturesis animportanticono-
graphicclue to theiridentityandsocialrole.Analy-
sis of the feathers'diagnosticfeaturesrevealedthat
theyarealmostsurelyowl feathers(JohnP.O'Neill,
personalcommunication1991). The most likely
species would be the burrowingowl, common to
thedesertcoastalareasof theregion.Twootherpos-
sibilitiesmay have been the Peruvianpygmy owl,
which nests in the low foothills, or the Pacific
screech owl, a bird more common to vegetated
areaswhere thereare largertrees, such as algar-
roba.
Early colonial references (Arriaga 1968:87
[1621]) describe a link between shamanismand
owls. This link has been furthernotedby scholars
of Moche iconography, such as Donnan
(1976:127-128) and Hocquenghem(1987:125),
whopointto depictionsof femalehealersandpriest-
esses shown as partowl. Hocquenghemand Lyon
(1980) point out that the Moche priestess in the
muralsof Pafiamarca (alsoknownasFigureC;Don-
nan1978:158)appearsto be wearinga tunicof feath-
ers.ItseemsthatinChimdtimes,femalehunchbacks
maywell havebeenassociatedwitha shamanicreli-
giouspracticewhoseiconongraphic signifierrelated
to owls. As such, the use of owl featherson the
Chimtifiguresformsa pointof ideologicalcontinu-
ity between the Moche and Chimd periods,sug-
gesting thatat least one particularsocial role may
havesurvivedthe Moche-Chimiitransition.
The remainingfourhunchbackfiguresall have
trapezoidalheaddressesandloincloths,indicating
malegender(Figure7). Withtheexceptionof a sin-
gle figurefromTacaynamo,the uppertorsos,front
and back, are decorated with diving cormorant
motifs, inlaid with darkbrown/blackhardwoods
and white shell highlights.The Tacaynamofigure
has the Chimfifeathermotif on its torso frontand
back(Figure7d).As hunchbacks,thesefiguresalso
very likely representreligiouspractitioners.
Fourseatedfemale nudesareamongthe group
in this study.Like otherfemale figures,they have
roundedheaddresseswith perforationsalong the
forehead,presumablyfora missingheaddresscom-
Jackson] ANDEL DRAGON
CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACASTACAYNAMO 309

Figure 6. Female hunchback figureswith feathers and small metal disks: (a) HCP22 #1556, standing figure holds bowl;
(b) HCP23 #1557, seated figure holds bowl; (c) U256, seated figure holds bowl (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson;
see appendix for provenience key).
310 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 15, No. 3, 2004

Figure 7. Male hunchback figures holding bowls: (a) U260, standing figure with diving comorant inlay motif; (b) U259,
seated figure with diving comorant inlay motif; (c) U263, standing figure with diving comorant inlay motif; (d) PV246/27,
small, eroded figure with remains of Chimli feather surface motif (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix
for provenience key).

ponent, and wrist tattoos (or bracelets),and their
gender is indicatedby the presence of genitalia.
Threefiguresdescribedby Schaedel(1951) were
unavailableto be photographedfor the present
study, but are neverthelessincluded among this
cohort.Thefourthfigure,somewhatincongruously
referredto by Schaedelas the "PeruvianVenus,"is
distinctive(Figure8). Similarin some respectsto
the seatedfemalehunchbacks,she wearselaborate
earspoolsbutis not clad in feathers.Herrole is not
immediatelyobvious,butbecomes moreapparent
in comparisonto theChimtimaquettesfromHuaca
de La Luna.One maquette,depictinga ceremony
veneratingthe dead within an architecturalspace,
includesatleasttwo miniaturefemale"mummies,"
figurinesseatedandbundledin textiles,apparently
theceremony'shonorees.Formallyspeaking,their
pose and gestureclosely echoes Schaedel'sPeru-
vian Venus, suggestingthat the El Drag6nfigure
was possibly wrappedas a mummy,and perhaps
even intendedto ride in one of the small litters.
HuacaTacaynamo'ssculptedprisoners(Figure
9) evince a distinct similarity to Moche icono-
graphicantecedents.Immediatelyrecognizableas
male prisoners,with genitalia exposed, one fig-
ure's armsare brokenoff at the elbows, two have
their hands positioned awkwardlybehind their
backs,andone still has a cordbindinghis neck and
ankles. Images of prisonerscarriedan important
ideological charge, and although ideological
changes may have alteredthe contexts in which
prisoners were sacrificed, and stylistic change
occurredovertime,thereseemslittledoubtthatthis
particulariconographicconstructwas carriedfrom
one epoch to the next.
The strippingof a warrior'sclothing,shield,and
weaponwas a symbolof his humiliationanddefeat.
During the Moche period, prisonerswere often
shownbeingled by ropes.Thevictorgenerallycar-
riedthecaptive'sclothing,shield,andhelmethang-
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURES OF HUACAS TACAYNAMOAND EL DRAGON
Figure 8. Seated female nude: U258, Schaedel's "Peruvian Venus" has distinctive ears and recognizable gender attrib-
utes (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix for provenience key).
ing fromthe capturedwarclub;the genitaliaof the
nude captive were clearly depicted. This image
cluster was so well recognized that it could be
shown in abbreviatedform (Jackson 2000). By
Chimditimes,the pictorialfocus was less aboutthe
victoriouswarriorand more on the sacrificialvic-
tims alone, yet artistsstill made a point of unmis-
takablyshowingprisonersnude,with exaggerated
genitals,and with largeropes aroundtheirnecks.
The prisonersculpturesbear numerousrefer-
ences to theirsacrificialrole in the formof various
markingson theirbodies. Two of the figureshave
smalldrawingsof felineson eithersideof theupper
chest (Figures 9a, 9b). The rampant feline or
"FangedBeing" was anotherof those images so
highly investedwith meaningthatit was possible
to evokethethemeof deityandbloodsacrificesim-
ply throughan abbreviatedicon. The presenceof
this fanged creature alluded to deeply rooted
Andeanideologies (Benson 1974). I hold that,in
this case, the attack of the feline was a visual
metaphorsignalingthe killing of the prisoner,the
actof bloodsacrificeandtranscendenceto thespirit
world.Its presenceuponthe prisoners'chests sug-
gests theirultimatefate.
The sameprisonerswho aremarkedwithfelines
also havea verticalcolumnof chevronsin the cen-
ter of the chest, indicatingthe spinalcolumn.The
association between chevron columns and the
human spinal column is made on the basis of
pathologyfindingsfromsacrificialvictimsatPacat-
nami, in the JequetepequeValley (Donnan and
Cock 1986, 1997).JohnVerano's(1986:117-125)
311
analysisof humanskeletalremainsrecoveredfrom
Pacatnamui revealsthatone of thevictimshadrem-
nantsof rope aroundhis anklesandthatsome had
sufferedrepeatedstabbingsto the chest and spinal
areawitha sharpinstrument.He concludedthatthe
bodies at Pacatnamdwere those of sacrificialpris-
oners.Verano(1986:135,Figure26) pointsoutthat
these stabwoundscorrelatewell withthe vivid red
hole penetratingthe body of one of HuacaTacay-
namo's wooden sculptures(Figure9a), beginning
in theupperleft chest andterminatingon the lower
left backsideof the figure.
In additionto felines and chevroncolumns,all
three prisonerfigures are markedfront and back
with a tulip-shapedmotifthatservesto furthersig-
nal their sacrificialfate. The associationbetween
Spondylusshellandthissemicircular, prongedform
is madeclearby Pillsbury's(1996) analysisof the
motif in the Los Buceadoresfrieze at Ciudadela
Uhle, ChanChan.The enormousvalueof Spondy-
lus shell as a ritualand offertorysubstanceis well
documentedin theAndeanworld;the Sypondylus
markingson the bodies of the sacrificialprisoners
reinforcetheiroffertorymeaning.
If theprisonerfigureswereultimatelyto become
sacrificialvictims,a characterreferredto here as a
tumilknifeholdermay well have dispatchedthem.
Among the sculpturesof HuacasTacaynamoand
El Drag6n there are three figures that have a
clenched righthand with a hole in it (Figure 10).
Although, the figures' slottedhands did not hold
any objectswhen recovered,Navarro(1990) sug-
gests that the figures were meant to be holding
312 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 15, No. 3, 2004

Figure 9. Bound male prisoners: In each case, genitals are visible beneath loincloth. (a) PV246/40, with traces of twine
still evident; prisoner has a chevron "spinal column" and paired felines on torso; (b) PV246/40, detail, upper body paint-
ings; (c) PV246/70, shows feline, chevron and Spondylus shell motifs; body has a large hole passing from the upper left
shoulder through to backside, arms appear deliberately severed; (d) PV246/70, detail of painted torso; (e) PV246/57 has
Spondylus shell motifs; (f) PV246/57, detail of torso (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix for prove-
nience key).
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACASTACAYNAMO
AND EL DRAGON 313

Figure 10. Tumi/knifeholders: Each figure has slotted right hand; (a) NAV3, standing figure, painted circles visible on
torso and legs; (b) PV246/28, standing figure, painted dots visible on torso; (c) SIL2, standing figure with hole in right
hand, torso painted white with black circles (scale is in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix for provenience key).
314 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
tumis(crescent-shapedknives associatedwith rit-
ual sacrifice).His proposalwas basedon theobser-
vation that a wooden tumi found during his
excavationfits the slot in the handof one of Tacay-
namo'swooden figures.
However speculative, Huaca de La Luna's
maquettessupporthis assertion.They includeone
tableauwith a prisonershown as partof a funeral
procession.A differenttableauincludesa member
of the processionholding the tell-tale tumi,leav-
ing the viewerto inferthe ultimatefate of the pris-
oner.
The presenceof distinctivemarkingsmakes it
possible to single out the tumilknifeholders as a
distinctgenre.All threewerepaintedwithblackor
red circles on their arms,torsos, and thighs. The
circles terminatein bands aroundthe wrists and
knee areasof the figures,suggestinga representa-
tion of a specific type of garmentor body paint.
This distinctive spotted embellishmentpossibly
servesas anadditionalreferenceto thefeline/blood
sacrificemetaphor.
Seven of the woodenfiguresmakean offertory
gesture, with hands resting over the solar plexus
(Figure11).Althoughthe handsdo not touch,it is
possible thatthey held something,perhapsa slen-
derkero(cylindricaldrinkingvessel) orotheroffer-
tory object.All have trapezoidalheaddressesand
originallyall had shell inlay in the pelican,diving
cormorant,or dotmotifs.Theyareamongthemost
richlydecoratedof all the sculptures,whichhas led
to the suggestionthatthey enjoyeda higherstatus
thanothers.Schaedel(1966), forexample,asserted
thatat least two andpossibly threeranksof strati-
fied class society are represented.Althoughtheir
social statusremainsspeculative,the offertoryfig-
ureslikelyrepresentrequisitemembersof theover-
all ritualprocession,perhapsattendantpriests or
witnessparticipants, whoseidentitiesweresignaled
by theirelaboratemarkings.
The lastidentifiablegroupis thejarbearers,fig-
ureswho carrylargejars on theirbackssupported
by tumplines (Figure 12). Two examples were
recovered from Tacaynamo.They carry a con-
strictedneckjarwitha stopper,commonlyusedfor
storingliquids.Giventhe ritualcontext,the liquid
was probablychicha (fermentedcornbeer).Addi-
tionaljarbearersarefoundin Chimi artfromother
sites. Forexample,Uhle at CerroBlancoretrieved
two strikinglysimilarwoodensculptures(Jackson
[Vol.15, No. 3, 2004
1991;Menzel 1977),andfourjarbearersareshown
in Huacade La Luna'svarioustableau(Uceda et
al. 1997:Figures83, 89). In everycase, thejartype
is the sameglobularform,ajar centralto theritual
depictedin Figure3.
Finally,the remainderof the study groupwas
composed of figures whose gesturesare indeter-
minate;they are either unique, unrecognized,or
cannot be classified because of damage (Figure
13). Theirtrapezoidalheaddressesand loincloths
identifythem as male. One figure'shands(Figure
13a) are positionedto the center,graspinga miss-
ing objectthatwas probablya staff,muchlike the
staff holdersin the Huacade La Lunamaquettes.
Three have elaborateshell inlay and headdresses
with doubletassels in back.They raise theirright
hands,butthe handpositiondoes not indicatethat
they were littercarriers.More likely they carried
offertoryobjects,such as basketsor smallparcels.
In sum, each sculpturepossesses iconographic
attributesthatidentifyit as a particularcharacter,
yet nonecouldbe describedas a portraitof anyspe-
cific individual.As representationsof social roles
the figuresfunctioniconically,yet theypossess lit-
tle depthof meaninguntil they are consideredas
partof a largernarrativestructure.As such, each
seems to representa participantin a ritualproces-
sion: an observer,a sacrificialvictim, or a carrier
of something.The processionmay have actually
beensubdividedintotwo ormorescenes-a funeral
procession and a procession of sacrificial
victim(s)-ultimately relatedto Chimdireligious
practice.
Function of Huacas
UnderSchaedel's(1966:452-453) intrusiveburial
the huacas assumeda religiouspri-
interpretation,
macy,witha secondaryfuneralaspect.Butthecon-
ceptual separation of religious practice and
celebrationof the dead was most likely nonexis-
tentfor the Chimii,as Moore's(1996) workon the
architectureof ritualand Doyle's (1988) studyof
Andean ancestorworship make clear. The pres-
ence of the dead and their venerationserved to
bringpower and legitimacyto the sites. In fact, it
was the verypresenceof the deadthatcausedhua-
cas like El Drag6n and Tacaynamoto be trans-
formedintosacredspace(Doyle 1988).Regardless
of what otheractivitiesmay have occurredthere,
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURES OF HUACAS TACAYNAMOAND EL DRAGON 315

Figure 11. Offertory figures: (a) HCP/5 #1539, inlaid with mother-of-pearl dots; (b) U71(U58), inlaid with mother-of-
pearl, both diving pelican and standing pelican motifs; (c) PV246/71, has diving bird motif; (d) PV246/54, has diving bird
motif; (e) PV246/29, has diving bird motif; f) NAV4, partial figure with standing pelican motif (scale is in cm; pho-
tographs M. Jackson; see appendix for provenience key).

it wouldbe incongruousto encountershrineswhose traditionof usingraisedplatformsfortheinterment

primaryfunctionwas ceremonial,butwhich were
consecratedthroughsome ideology otherthanone
involving communionwith the ancestorsand the
spiritworld.
The primacyof these two huacas as funerary
structures is supported by related architecture
elsewhere at Chan Chan. Within the royal com-
pounds,elite Chimtiburialscontinuedthe coastal
of high-statuspersons. Funeraryrites generally
includedthe observanceof a lengthyseriesof bur-
ial celebrations(Netherly 1990; Ramirez 1996).
Of his excavationsat ChanChan, GeoffreyCon-
rad (1982) writes that, along with vast quantities
of offertorygoods, ritualhumansacrificewas an
integralpartof theceremony.He continues,assert-
ing that:
316 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 15, No. 3, 2004

Figure 12. Jar bearers: (a) NAV5, figure wears trapezoidal headdress in addition to tumpline, inlaid dots motif; (b)
PV246/30, Chimuifeather motif visible on torso, right arm broken off, bits of twine on left wrist (scale is in cm; pho-
tographs M. Jackson; see appendix for provenience key).

chambers surrounding a principal chamber

Some time elapsed afterthe completion of this
enclosedby high walls. HuacasTacaynamoandEl
first phase of the funeraryrites. ... Then [the
Drag6n follow this general arrangementas well.
deceased person] ... was again celebrated by
repeatingaspects of the burialceremony. A Theywere not,however,containedwithinanyciu-
primary-stage structuraladdition was built dadela complex and seem comparativelymodest
aroundthreesidesof the originalplatform... in scale. Perhapsthey were the burialplaces of
[withtheadditionof] furtherprestigeartifacts lessernobility,ratherthanof highestroyalty.Inany
andhumansacrifices,eitherall atonceorseri- case, becausethe continuingrelationshipbetween
ally over a number of years [Conrad the living and the dead was key to the practiceof
1982:103]. ancestorworship,Huacas El Drag6n and Tacay-
namo almost certainlyserved both religious and
Nine of the ten majorcompoundsatChanChan
functionssimultaneously.
havefuneralplatformmoundsconformingto Con- funerary
rad's (1982:87-88) general descriptionof burial
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACAS ANDEL DRAGON
TACAYNAMO 317

Figure 13. Indeterminate figures: (a) PV246/51, standing pose; hands meet and have vertical holes, perhaps to hold staff-
like object; (b) NAV2, right hand up, palm facing backward; inlaid fish motif; (c) U70(U57), right hand up, palm facing
forward; (d) U229, right hand raised, palm outward; (e) SIL1, hands near solar plexus, fingers point downward (scale is
in cm; photographs M. Jackson; see appendix for provenience key).

Conclusions next, while othersdid not, suggests a loss of cul-

turalviability for those images that ceased to be
Correlationof the 53 Chimi wood figuresin this used.Theirabsencecould
signala deliberateomis-
studyto iconographicantecedentsfromtheMoche sionon thepartof patrons,who, as theycon-
Chimii
periodshowsthatcertainMocheculturalconstructs solidated their political base after the turbulent
continuedto be ideologicallyviable well into the Middle
Horizon,may have sought to avoid mak-
Chimuiperiod.The fact that some characterssur- ing visual referenceto certainmembersof the old
vived the transitionfromone culturalepoch to the
rulingorder.Or,the changescould be attributable
318 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
to less-intentionalideologicalslippage.Ingeneral,
those iconographic features that were retained
reflect some of the oldest and most broadly
accepted of Andean beliefs and customs. These
included the feline/blood sacrifice iconographic
metaphor,the ritualuse of chicha andSpondylus,
the institutionof ancestorworship (with its con-
ception of an afterlifeand reciprocalinterchange
betweenthe deadandthe living), the institutionof
social stratification(which allowedelites to enjoy
status-dictatedburialsites and ride in litters),and
the associationof hunchbacks,owls, andreligious
specialistsas mediatorsto the spiritworld.
It is highly doubtfulthatthese particularsculp-
tureswere ever worshippedas idols. Rather,they
wereprobablyincludedas a partof thegravegoods
of the person(s) interredat these structures.The
sculpturesfunctionedtogetherin groupsto depict
specific charactersengagedin socially prescribed
activitiesrelatedto deathandvenerationof ances-
tors. Their highly stylized gestures suggest that
they were intendedto be observedas staticiconic
statementscommemoratingor (re)enactingritual
activity.Althoughit is possiblethatthey werepub-
licly paradedon occasion, theirscale and level of
detailsuggestthattheywereintendedto be viewed
at close quarters-specific details would not be
perceptibleto the viewer at more than about 1-3
m distance.
The factthatthe buildingsarenotencompassed
by the largerroyalcompoundsof ChanChansug-
gests thatthe huacascelebratedtheburialof mem-
bers of some elite other than the royal families
housed in the ciudadelas. However, there is no
materialevidenceto supportthe idea thatthe hua-
cas mayhavebeentheburialplatformsforpersons
originatingoutsidetheMocheValley,for example,
hostage nobility from Lambayeque (Donnan
1990b).Instead,it seems morelikely thatthe prin-
cipal burialsat HuacasEl Drag6nandTacaynamo
wereof importantpersons(whoseremainsarenow
missing) whose social staturewas in some way
articulatedby the motifs emblazoningthe archi-
tectures'exteriorwalls. It is even possible thatthe
woodensculptureswerenot includedas partof the
initial interment(s). The tombs may have been
opened or otherwise periodically renewed with
additional grave goods, libations, or sacrifices,
includingofferingsof sculpturalgroupsdepicting
venerativerituals.
[Vol.15, No. 3, 2004
The sculptureswere not culturallyintrusiveto
HuacasTacaynamoandEl Drag6nas initiallysup-
posed. Instead, the huacas themselves were of
Chimtiorigin.This review of variousarchaeolog-
ical and iconographicdataleads to the conclusion
thatHuacasTacaynamoand El Drag6nwere con-
structedsometimeduringthe EarlyChimtiperiod,
servingbothfuneraryandreligiousfunctionssimul-
taneously. Viewing the huacas in a synchronic
frameworkgeneratesa sociological context that
allowsus tojoin them-and theirsculptures-with
whatwe knowof othersimilarstructuresin thearea
and supportsthe idea thatthe overallintentionof
the sculpturalprogramwas integrallylinkedto the
functionof the huacas as funerarymonuments.
Acknowledgments.This study was supportedin part by an
award from the UCLA Friends of Archaeology. I wish to
thank Glenn S. Russell and Banks L. Leonard of the
ChicamaValley SettlementSurveyProjectfor theirgenerous
supportand JoannePillsburyfor her special guidance in the
research. My sincere appreciationgoes to Santiago Uceda
and Ricardo Morales of the Huaca de La Luna excavations
for theirhelp and willingness to allow me to study the Chimdi
maquettes.Additionally,I am grateful to Ana Maria Hoyle
and Jesus Bricefio of the Instituto Nacional de Culturain
Trujillo,as well as the HuacaEl Drag6nMuseo del Sitio, and
Enrique Vergara of the Museo de Arqueologifa de la
UniversidadNacional de Trujillofor grantingpermissionto
photograph the wooden sculptures. I also wish to thank
Cecelia F. Klein for her attention to my research and the
scholars who reviewed this article for press.
References Cited
Arriaga,PabloJosephde
1968 [1621] Extirpationof ldolatryin Peru'.Translatedby
ClarkKeating.Universityof KentuckyPress,Lexington.
Bawden,GarthL.
1982 Galindo:A Study in CulturalTransitionDuringthe
Middle Horizon. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City,
edited by Michael Mosely and Kent Day, pp. 285-320.
School of AmericanResearch,Universityof New Mexico
Press,Albuquerque.
Bennett,WendellC.
1939 Archaeologyof Peri's NorthCoast.Anthropological
Papersof the AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistoryVol.
37, pt. 1,pp. 1-153. Museumof NaturalHistory,NewYork.
1954 AncientArts of the Andes. Museumof ModernArt,
New York.
Benson, ElizabethP.
1974 A Man and a Feline in Mochica Art. Studies in Pre-
ColumbianArtandArchaeologyNo. 14.DumbartonOaks,
WashingtonD.C.
1995 Art,Agriculture,Warfareand the GuanoIslands.In
Andean Art: Visual Expression and Its Relation to Andean
Beliefs and Values, edited by Penny Dransart, pp. 245-264.
AveburyPress,Hampshire.
Bourget,Steve
Jackson] CHIMUSCULPTURESOF HUACAS AND EL DRAGON
TACAYNAMO
2001 Ritualsof Sacrifice:Its Practiceat Huacade la Luna
and its Representationin Moche Iconography.In Moche
Art and Archaeologyin Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne
Pillsbury,pp. 89-110. NationalGalleryof Art,Yale Uni-
versityPress,WashingtonD.C and New Haven.
Castillo,Luis Jaime
1989 Personajesmiticos,escenasy narracionesen la icono-
grafia mochica.PontificiaUniversidadCat6licadel Perni.
Lima.
2000 La Presenciade Warien San Jose de Moro. Boletin
de ArqueologiaPUCP, no. 4, pp. 143-179.
2001 The Last of the Mochicas:A View fromthe Jequete-
peque Valley.In MocheArt and Archaeologyin Ancient
Peru, edited by JoannePillsbury,pp. 307-332. National
Galleryof Art,YaleUniversityPress,WashingtonD.C and
New Haven.
Collier,Donald
1955 CulturalChronologyandChangeas Reflectedin the
Ceramicsof the ViruValley,Perui.Fieldiana:Anthropol-
ogy Vol. 43. Field Museumof NaturalHistory,Chicago.
Conrad,Geoffrey
1982 The BurialPlatformsof ChanChan.In Chan Chan:
AndeanDesert City,editedby MichaelMoseley andKent
Day, pp. 87-118. School of AmericanResearch,Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Donnan,ChristopherB.
1978 MocheArtofPeru.Museumof CulturalHistory,Uni-
versityof CaliforniaPress,Los Angeles.
1988 UnravelingtheMysteryof theWarrior-Priest. National
Geographic174(4):550-555.
1990a An Assessment of the Validity of the Naymlap
Dynasty. The NorthernDynasties: Kingshipand State-
scraft in Chimor,edited by Michael Moseley and Alana
Cordy-Collins,pp. 243-274. DumbartonOaks,Washing-
ton D.C.
1990b The ChotunaFriezesandthe Chotuna-Dragon Con-
nection.TheNorthernDynasties:KingshipandStatescraft
in Chimor,editedby MichaelMoseley andAlanaCordy-
Collins,pp.275-296. DumbartonOaks,Washington,D.C.
Donnan,Christopher,andLuis JaimeCastillo
1992 FindingtheTombof a Moche Priestess.Archaeology
45(6):38-42.
Donnan,ChristopherB., andGuillermoCock
1986 ThePacatnami Papers.FowlerMuseumof Cultural
History,Universityof CaliforniaPress,Los Angeles.
1997 The PacatnamuPapers, Volume2. Fowler Museum
of CulturalHistory,Universityof CaliforniaPress, Los
Angeles.
Donnan,ChristopherB., andCarolJ. Mackey
1978 AncientBurialPatternsin theMocheValley,Peri. Uni-
versityof TexasPress,Austin.
Doyle, MaryE.
1988 AncestorCult and Burial Ritual in the Seventeenth
andEighteenthCentury,CentralPerni.UnpublishedPh.D.
dissertation,Departmentof History,Universityof Cali-
fornia,Los Angeles.
Ford,James
1949 CulturalDating of PrehistoricSites in Viru Valley,
Peru.AnthropologicalPapersof theAmericanMuseumof
NaturalHistoryVol.43, Part1.AmericanMuseumof Nat-
uralHistory,New York.
Hocquenghem,Anne Marie
1987 Iconografiamochica.PontificiaUniversidadCatolica,
Lima.
Hocquenghem,Anne Marie,and PatriciaJ. Lyon
1980 A Class of AnthropomorphicSupernaturalFemales
in Moche Iconography.NlawpaPacha 18:27-48.
319
Horkheimer,Hans
1944 Vistasarqueol6gicasdel noroestedel Peru'.Instituto
Arqueol6gicode la UniversidadNacionaldeTrujillo,Tru-
jillo.
Iriarte,Francisco
1969 La Huaca"ElDrag6n"y su Restoration.Unpublished
Ph.D.dissertation,Facultadde CienciasSocialesdeArque-
ologifa,UniversidadNacionalMayorde SanMarcos,Lima.
1976 Los idolillos de Tacaynamo.UniversidadNacional
FedericoVillarreal,Facultadde CienciasSociales, Lima.
Jackson,MargaretA.
1991 CulturalContinuity and Political Legitimation in
ChimtiWoodenSculpturefrom the Moche Valley,Peru.
UnpublishedMaster'sthesis, Departmentof Art History,
Universityof California,Los Angeles.
2000 Notation and Narrativein Moche Iconographyat
Cerro Mayal, Peru. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Departmentof Art History,Universityof California,Los
Angeles.
Jones,Julie
1979 Mochica Worksof Art in Metal. In Precolumbian
Metallurgyof SouthAmerica,editedby ElizabethP.Ben-
son, pp. 53-104. DumbartonOaks,Washington,D.C.
Keatinge,RichardW.
1982 The ChimdEmpirein a Regional Perspective:Cul-
tural Antecedents and Continuities. In Chan Chan:
AndeanDesert City,editedby MichaelMoseley andKent
Day,pp. 197-224. Universityof New MexicoPress,Albu-
querque.
Kolata,Alan
1982 ChronologyandSettlementGrowthatChanChan.In
Chan Chan:AndeanDesert City, Michael Moseley and
Kent Day, pp. 67-86. Universityof New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Kroeber,AlfredL.
1925 TheUhlePotteryCollectionsfromMoche.University
of CaliforniaPublicationsin AmericanArchaeologyand
EthnologyVol. 21(5), pp. 191-234. Berkeley.
1930 Archaeological Explorationsin Peri, part 1: The
NorthernCoast.FieldMuseumof NaturalHistoryAnthro-
pology MemoirsVol. 2, No. 2. Chicago.
1954 Proto-Lima:A Middle PeriodCultureof Peri. Fiel-
dianaVol. 44. No. 1. Field Museumof NaturalHistory,
Chicago.
Lopez Serrano,Matilde
1976 7-Trujillo del Peru'el siglo XVIII[estudiode Martinez
Compafiony Bujandal. EditorialPatrimonioNacional,
Madrid.
Mackey.CarolJ.
1982 The MiddleHorizonas Viewedfromthe MocheVal-
ley. In ChanChan:AndeanDesertCity,editedby Michael
Moseley and KentDay, pp. 321-332. Universityof New
Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Menzel, Dorothy
1977 TheArchaeologyofAncientPeruandtheWorkofMax
Uhle. Museumof Anthropology.Universityof Cal-
I.owie
ifornia Press,Berkeley.
Moore,JerryD.
1996 Architectureand Power in the AncientAndes.Cam-
bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Moseley,Michael
1982 Introduction:HumanExploitationand Organization
on theNorthAndeanCoast.In ChanChan:AndeanDesert
City,editedby MichaelMoseley andKentDay, pp. 1-24.
Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
1992 TheIncas and TheirAncestors:TheArchaeologyof
Peru.Thamesand Hudson,London.
320 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.15, No. 3, 2004

Navarro,Hugo Rowe, JohnH.

1988 Tacaynamo:un sitio Chimtlen el valle de Moche. In 1948 The Kingdom of Chimor. Acta Americana
Architecturay arqueologia:pasado y futuro de la cons- 6(1-2):26-59.
trucidnen el Perui,edited by Victor Rangel Flores, pp. Schaedel,RichardP.
203-222. Museo Bruning,Chiclayo,Peru. 1951 WoodenIdols of Peru.Archaeology4(1): 16-22.
1990 Tacaynamoy las huacasde ChanChan.Unpublished 1959 Terminologifa en la arqueologiaperuana.Actosy Tra-
tesis licenciado,Facultadde CienciasSociales, Universi- bajos del II Congresode Historia del Perdi,Epoca Pre-
dad Nacionalde Trujillo,Trujillo,Perui. hispana,Vol. 1, pp. 30-41. Lima.
Netherly,PatriciaJ. 1966 The Huaca El Drag6n. Journal de la Socidtd des
1990 Outof Many,One:TheOrganizationof Rulein North Amdricanistes55(2):383-496.
Coast Polities. In The Northern Dynasties, edited by Squier,EphraimG.
MichaelMoseley andAlanaCordy-Collins,pp. 461-487. 1973 [1877] Peru:Incidentsof Traveland Explorationin
DumbartonOaks,WashingtonD.C. the Landof the Incas. PeabodyMuseumof Archaeology
Pillsbury,Joanne and Ethnology,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1993 SculptedFriezes of the Empireof Chimor.Unpub- Topic,TeresaLange
lished Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof Art Historyand 1982 TheEarlyIntermediate PeriodandItsLegacy.In Chan
Archaeology,ColumbiaUniversity,New York. Chan:AndeanDesertCity,editedby MichaelMoseleyand
1996 TheThornyOysterandthe Originsof Empire:Impli- KentDay,pp. 255-284. Universityof New Mexico Press,
cations of RecentlyUncoveredSpondylusImageryfrom Albuquerque.
ChanChan,Perni.LatinAmericanAntiquity7:313-340. Uceda Santiago,Elias Mujica,andRicardoMorales
2001 Introduction. In Moche Art and Archaeology in 1997 Investigacionesen la Huaca de la Luna 1995. Uni-
Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 9-19. versidadNacionalde La Libertad,Trujillo.
NationalGalleryof Art,Yale UniversityPress,Washing- Verano,JohnW.
ton D.C andNew Haven. 1986 A MassBurialof MutilatedIndividualsatPacatnamu.
Ramirez,SusanE. In The PacatnamuPapers,Vol. 1, edited by Christopher
1996 TheWorldUpsideDown:Cross-CulturalContactand B. DonnanandGillermoA. Cock, pp. 117-138. Museum
Conflictin Sixteenth-Century Peru. StanfordUniversity of CulturalHistory,Universityof CaliforniaPress, Los
Press,Stanford. Angeles.
Rivero,MarianoEduardo,andJohannJakobvon Tschudi Willey,GordonR.
1855 PeruvianAntiquities. Translatedby FrancisL. Hawks. 1953 PrehistoricSettlementPatternsin the Lower Santa
A. S. Barnes,New York. Valley,Peru:A RegionalPerspectiveon the Originsand
Rodman,Amy Oakland,andArabelFernandez Developmentof ComplexNorthCoastSociety.Smithson-
2000 LosTejidosHuariy Tiwanaku:Comparaciones y Con- ian Institution,Bureauof AmericanEthnology Bulletin
textos.Boletinde ArqueologfaPUCP,no. 4, pp. 119-130. 155. Washington,D.C.
Rowe, Anne P.
1984 Costumesand Featherworkof the Lordsof Chimor:
Textilesfrom Peru'sNorthCoast.TextileMuseum,Wash- ReceivedJanuary24, 2001; AcceptedMay 25, 2001; Revised
ington,D.C. June 5, 2003.

Appendix. Summary of Sculptures' Provenience and Formal Characteristics.

The groupin this study does not representall the ber 24). The TrujilloMuseumof Archaeologyuti-
woodenfigurecarvingsthatwerelikelyto havebeen lizeda systemintroducedby RichardSchaedel,with
presentat these sites originally,nordoes it address cataloguenumbersbeginningwiththeletterU. The
the scoresof figuresthathavebeen recoveredfrom Trujillo Museum's catalogue files occasionally
variousother coastal sites. In this appendixeach reflect discrepanciesin numbering;I have, hope-
piece is describedby its type,proveniencenumber, fully,correctedany misnumberingthroughcareful
the site from which it was recovered,the name of comparisonof publications,drawings,photos,etc.
the archaeologistwho retrievedit, the dominant The Museo del Sitio, on the groundsof the site of
motifs,andthe primarymaterials.The designation El Dragon,utilizes a catalogueregistryin simple
of specificwood typesis basedon visualinspection numericalorder,occasionallyprecededby the ini-
andhandling,ratherthanlaboratorytesting. tials "HCP"(HuacaCien Pies). Navarroand Silva
Each piece has a uniqueproveniencenumber. simply numberedtheir wooden sculptures one
Theseareusuallythenumbersgivenby thearchae- throughfour.To distinguishamongthese, the first
ologiststhemselves,orthenumbersgivenby muse- threelettersof theirsurnamesfollow thenumberof
ums. In general, Iriarteused a system that has the find(eg., # 2 NAV,etc.).Asterisks(**) indicate
numbersbeginningwith PV24 (PeruValleynum- sculpturesthatarenot reproducedin this article.
 Appendix Table 1.

Item Provenience; Dimensions (ht. x width Dominant Descriptio

Number Archaeologist x depth) Motif(s) and Comm
Litter Carrier Figures
PV246/5 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 53.7 x 19 x 8.5 cm Paintedstripes(red,yellow, black,white) Right arm
#3 SIL Tacaynamo;Silva 55 x 18 x 8.5 cm Inlay, dots (1 cm) Right arm
PV246/56 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 41 x 15 x 8.5 cm Inlay, dots (1.5 cm) Partialfig
#1 NAV Tacaynamo;Navarro 52.5 x 17 x 12.5 cm None Right arm
PV246/61 (**,not illustrated) Tacaynamo;Iriarte 55.5 x 17 x 11.5 cm Inlay, standingpelican motif Right arm
eroded; pa
PV246/64 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 40.5 x 15 x 7.5 cm Inlay dots (1.5 cm) Partialfigu
PV246/60 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 58.2 x 18 x 10.5 cm Inlay, standing pelican motif Right arm

Litter Backrests
PV246/47 Tacaynamo;Iriarte Roughly 35 x 35 cm (not Heavy inlay, centralperson with atten- Balsa (?)
including pole tips) dants
PV 246/31 Tacaynamo;Iriarte Roughly 35 x 35 cm Front painted red with black border Balsa (?)
Number unknown El Dragon;Schaedel Roughly 35 x 35 cm Heavy inlay, wave/marinetheme Balsa (?)

Female HunchbackFigures
HCP/22 #1556 El Dragon;Iriarte 39.5 x 16.5 x 13.5 cm Traces of being entirely covered with Standing p
feathers
U256 El Dragon; Schaedel 33 x 19 x 17 cm (not Once entirely covered with small dark Seated pos
including post mount) feathers and metal disks this Sitio 1
HCP/23 #1557 El Dragon; Iriarte 37.5 x 21 x 15.5 cm (not Covered with small dark feathersand Seated pos
including post mount) small metal discs (1.5 cm) disks still

Male HunchbackFigures
PV246/27 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 26 x 10 x 7 cm Chimdtfeather motif Partialfigu
U260 El Dragon; Schaedel 38 x 15.5 x 14.5 cm Diving cormorantmotif Standing p
U263 El Dragon; Schaedel 35 x 14.5 x 13.5 cm Diving cormorantmotif Standing p
"Sitio 17"
(left)
U259 El Dragon; Schaedel 31 x 17 x 17 cm Diving cormorantmotif Balsa; Sch

Seated Nude Female

U258 El Dragon; Schaedel 40.5 x 21.5 x 14 cm Figure appearsnude except for wrist- Schaedel's
bands Schaedel 1
Prisoner Figures
PV246/40 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 50.7 x 17 x 13 cm PaintedSpondylus,feline, and spinal Has twine
column motifs Algarroba
PV246/70 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 44.5 x 17.5 x 11.5 cm PaintedSpondylus,felines, and spinal Algarroba
column motifs
PV246/57 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 44.7 x 15 x 10.5 cm Paintedtulip-shapedSpondylusmotif Algarroba

Tumi/KnifeHolder Figures
#3 NAV Tacaynamo;Navarro 43.5 x 20 x 7 cm Paintedblack circles front and back Balsa
PV 246/28 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 45.7 x 18 x 7 cm Painteddots Algarroba
#2 SIL Tacaynamo;Silva 42.5 x 15 x 7 cm Torso painted white with rows of round Algarroba
black circles
OffertoryFigures
U71 (Univ. of Trujillo El Dragon;Schaedel 42 x 15 x 6 cm Diving pelican and standingpelican Algarroba
Museum lists as #U58) motifs #U71; Sch
HCP/5 #1539 El Dragon; Iriarte 48.7 x 11 x 8.5 cm Shell inlay, dots Balsa (?)
#4 NAV Tacaynamo;Navarro 22 x 15 x 9.5 cm Standingpelican motif Balsa
PV246/54 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 48.5 x 14 x 6.5 cm Diving bird motif inlays on headdress Algarroba
PV246/71 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 47 x 14 x 8 cm Diving bird motif inlays on headdress Algarroba
PV246/29 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 47.4 x 14 x 7 cm Diving bird motif inlays on headdress Balsa

Jar Bearer Figures

PV246/30 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 36.4 x 14 x 11.5 cm Chimdifeather motif, probablydeco- Algarroba
rated with thin metal inlays ratherthan
shell inlay
#5 NAV Tacaynamo;Navarro 37.5 x 15 x 12 cm Inlay,dot pattern(1.5 cm) Algarroba

IndeterminateFigures
PV246/51 Tacaynamo;Iriarte 43.3 x 15.5 x 11 cm None Standing p
U229 Tacaynamo;Schaedel 48.5 x 14 x 10.5 cm Chimudfeather motif Balsa; pen
ently Scha
#1 SIL Tacaynamo;Silva 49 x 14 x 9 cm Standingpelican motif Algarroba
#2 NAV Tacaynamo;Navarro 53.5 x 18 x 8.5 cm Inlays, fish motif Balsa
U70 (University of Trujillo El Dragon;Schaedel 46.5 x 17.5 x 10.5 cm Diving pelican motif Balsa; Sch
Musuem lists as #U57) (Schaedel