The Body Sacrificed A Bioarchaeological

Journal of Religion and Violence.
© 2015. ISSN 0738-098X.

doi:
Online First:
THE BODY SACRIFICED: A

BIOARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF RITUAL
VIOLENCE IN ANCIENT TÚCUME, PERU
J. Marla Toyne
University of Central Florida
Abstract: Human lives and bodies become transformed into sacred offerings during
sacrificial rites. We can recognize these transformative actions in the archaeological
record based on the location of human burials – often in association with sacred
spaces – and the evidence of peri-mortem manipulation of the bodies. This paper
will describe and discuss the different ways in which human bodies have been
manipulated in ancient Andean rites of human sacrifice as specific death rituals,
outside of traditional or normative mortuary practices. I introduce the concept
of the “body sacrificed” as a means through which to identify particular ritual
significance in the treatment of these special sacred offerings. I use an example of
human sacrifice from Túcume on the Northern Coast of Peru, as well as compari-
son with other documented sacrifice traditions across the Andean region. Using a
bioarchaeological approach can help elucidate sacrifice rituals and practices with
the focus on identifying and interpreting the physical manipulation of the body
via evidence left on the skeleton. Furthermore, with comparative ethnographic
data, we can identify the symbolic meaning in human burial arrangements and the
manipulation of the bodies. I argue that the treatment of the body reflects specific
symbolic gestures as part of the ritual process and that the death of the individual is
only the part of a more complex process. Thus, we can elucidate possible meanings
behind these transformative sacrificial rites in pre-Hispanic times.
INTRODUCTION
H uman sacrifice fascinates us. These are deaths are more than ritualized
murders of selected individuals for a specific purpose often directly
associated with a particular time, place or need but are imbued with sacred
meaning (Schultz 2010). In many ancient societies, religious practices fre-
quently appear to have involved ritual violence in the form of human sacrifice,
2 JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND VIOLENCE
but these events were often overestimated because of their spectacular nature
(Noegel 2007). Human sacrifices are not ‘natural’ deaths; not accidental,
nor random. While inherently destructive acts that end the life of a fellow
human being, the manner in which death occurs can be highly variable and
include elaborate pre- and post-mortem activities. Alternatively, they become
generative rites intended to symbolize transformation and unite communities
in the ultimate communication and exchange with the divine (Hubert and
Mauss 1964 [1898]). Sacrifice, or the offering of a sacrifice, is often to give
up something of value; to offer a gift in exchange for some perceived benefit
(Green 2001). Sacrifice establishes a reciprocal relationship, where something
is offered in order to receive. These intentional and symbolically powerful
acts may include physical violence, but not always (McClymond 2011).
Hubert and Mauss (1964 [1898]) focused on sacrifice as destructive where
a significant part of the ritual is the transformation of the offering in order to
consecrate it. This is usually a direct physical change of state or completeness.
For example, the offering may be burned and the smoke generated releases the
essence of the offering that can be taken up by the deity. Alternatively, offer-
ings are consumed or they may be buried. In each, the offerings are removed
from the human world and entered into spaces or realms only available to
the spirits or supernatural. Offerings may also be partitioned into symboli-
cally meaningful parts including blood, heart, entrails, limbs, or head, which
become the primary offerings or fractal parts of the whole (Chapman 2000).
In the cases of human and animal sacrifice, the transformation is from liv-
ing to dead. Life is the offering. For most cultures, human life is considered
to be the most valuable offering that can be made (Valeri 1985). Examples of
human sacrifice have been recorded for millennium from cultures throughout
the world including both literate and illiterate societies of various levels of
social complexity. Ancient Greeks and Romans, Hawaiian Islanders, African
tribes, Prehispanic Maya and Aztec empires all demonstrated evidence of
various forms of human sacrifice, including different victims and methods
of ritually offering life (e.g., Alanis 2007; Green 2001; Schultz 2010; Valeri
1985; Weiss-Krejci 2003).
In the Ancient Andes of South America, Inca histories and practices record-
ed by the early European chroniclers indicate that the Inca (AD 1470–1532)
believed in the power of sacrifice and made offerings of a variety of things,
including foods, textiles, ceramics, metals, and spondylus (thorny-oyster)
shells. Some sacrifices were simple, each having a particular value and were
required in certain numbers for efficacy of the offering (Besom 2009; Cobo
1990 [1653]; Guaman Poma de Ayala 1980 [1615]; Reinhard 2005). All of
these sacrifices had explicit meaning, were enacted at certain times, and the
THE BODY SACRIFICED: RITUAL VIOLENCE IN ANCIENT TÚCUME, PERU 3
rituals were performed in certain ways. Animals appear to have been regularly
sacrificed in large numbers as well as humans on certain occasions.
Inca human sacrifices, in particular, are described in various ways, but the
capac hucha are the best known. These young children who were selected
from throughout the empire based on physical beauty were offered to specific
apu, sacred mountain spirits. A number of these offerings have been recovered
archaeologically as perfectly preserved bodies wrapped in elaborate textiles
with miniature sacred offerings (Ceruti 2004; Reinhard 2005; Reinhard and
Ceruti 2010). Other types of human sacrifices were performed in different
ways with distinct victims and manners, including adults of both sexes who
were strangled, buried alive, or bled out (Besom 2009).
Increasingly, new archaeological discoveries from various regions of the
Central Andes are demonstrating that human sacrifice had a long history
in the region and many mortuary contexts provide detailed evidence of the
complexities of these rituals as separate from other beliefs about the dead
(Blom and Janusek 2004; Chicoine 2011; Eeckhout and Owens 2008; Gaither
et al. 2008; Klaus et al. 2010). What is significant about these ritual deaths
is that the individuals are treated and buried in special ways—in a distinct
manner than other individuals in these different societies who died of other
causes, natural or accidental. In these cases of sacrifice, the mortuary treat-
ment is distinctive thus reflecting the special nature of their deaths and often
includes physical evidence of manner of death such as cut marks or other
bodily manipulation.
Andean Mortuary Traditions

For a long time excavations in the Andes have included the exploration,
excavation, and analysis of funerary remains in various ancient civilizations
recognizing the importance of the placement and the dead in relation to the
living (Dillehay 1995; Isbell 1997; Silverman and Small 2002). Early interest
in burials stemmed from the need to develop ceramic-style identification and
chronological seriation from grave goods. There were also artistic interests
in the graphic representations of particular varieties of ceramic materials,
such as the Moche of the north coast. Tombs were discovered (very early in
archaeological exploration) to contain well-preserved ceramic vessels, often
of high quality, as well as other types of artifacts of interest; if preservation
was good enough to include decorated textiles and wooden implements.
Unfortunately, this was not only of archaeological interest but fueled by an
international market in antiquities and drove the looting of tombs at a grand
scale in previous decades.
Regrettably, the recovery of ceramic and tomb information dramatically

overshadowed the recording and analysis of the human physical remains for
a long time. Only recently have better methods and documentation practices
allowed us to include more information about the mortal remains found in
tombs (Chicoine 2011; Klaus and Tam 2015). The detailed bioarchaeological
analysis of skeletal and mummified remains recovered from different mortu-
ary contexts provides an important window into the lives of past populations
(Larsen 1997; Martin et al. 2014). This will be discussed further below.
Through the years, most regional and chronological archaeological ‘cultures’
have developed fairly well documented normative funerary traditions. General
features and patterns in tomb location, constructions, structures, orientation,
organization, associations, grave goods, etc. have been identified for specific
groups and time periods (e.g., Donnan 1995; Donnan and Mackey 1978;
Isbell 1997; Kaulicke 1997; Menzel 1977; Millaire 2002; Rowe 1995; Ruiz
Estrada 2009; Strong and Evans 1952).
The physical placement of the dead through the creation of defined
cemeteries and also near or within specific architectural structures has been
demonstrated for Andean cultures (Silverman and Small 2002). ‘In many
societies, places of death, disposal or commemoration may attain special
significance in which the physical and spiritual attributes of the living pass
into intensely localized and personified places and landscapes as bodily pow-
ers are diffused and reconstituted’ (Hamilakis et al. 2002: 12). The dead were
used often as offerings themselves to important locations often to consecrate
those places (Moore 2005). For example, at Túcume during the construction
of the Huaca Larga during the Late Intermediate Period (AD 1000–1350)
secondary burials (incomplete skeletonized remains) of children and young
adult females were interred within entrance ramps and benches built around
large patio areas (Toyne 2012).
Andean archaeological research has consistently demonstrated patterns
where social perceptions of the dead are reflected in the treatment and place-
ment of the corpse, including aspects of burial location, tomb preparation,
body adornment, and associated artifacts (grave goods) (Carr 1995). These
normative patterns of funerary practice reflect culturally and community based
shared beliefs in disposal of the dead. Isbell’s (1997) seminal work sought
to define Andean mortuary practices dividing between highland, as open ac-
cess mausoleum chamber tombs and coastal regions, as closed underground
cemeteries. However, recent theory and excavations have revealed that in
many coastal societies’ funerary contexts in reality represent only one stage
of a long-term natural, behavioral, and social process, and not necessarily
the last stage. After death, human burials were placed in contexts where they
could be easily accessed, revisited, consulted, fed, rewrapped, or moved, and
finally buried (Klaus and Tam 2015; Millaire 2004; Nelson 1998). There
are also many cases where burials do not follow normative burial practices,
where bodies are not in expected locations, and the remains are modified in
distinctive ways to suggest the burial’s deviancy reflects that the death or
individual may have been outside of social norms (Shay 1985; Weiss-Krejci
2008). These variants require that a closer examination of the burial features
take into account aspects of funerary treatment that suggest a lack the typi-
cal reverential pattern found within other burials and thus, a different type
of death (Tiesler 2007).
Therefore, archaeological evidence in the Andes suggests death and burial
were recognized as a more dynamic and interactive processes, where the liv-
ing’s connection to the dead continued after death and burial (Fitzsimmons
and Shimada 2015). This living-dead relationship was enacted in many ways
by the living through the manipulation of the remains of the dead, including
re-accessing the body or remains through disinterment, secondary reburial,
ossuary collections, or curated remains used as reliquaries. At the center of
these practices is the physical body of the deceased, or what remains, includ-
ing the individual skeletal elements. Yet, the dead body was not just a pas-
sive material manipulated by the living, but the remains may have become a
more generalized representation and connection to the ancestor(s) and was
embodied with special attributes.
BODY CONCEPT IN ANTHROPOLOGY

A recent approach in anthropological and archaeological theory has been
the exploration of the body as a social construct, recognizing how the body
is created, shaped, and transformed through social processes (individual and
collective decisions) as much as the natural biology of the tissues (Meskell
2000; Sofaer 2006a). For example, artificial cranial modification or shaping
of the cranial vault during infancy into a form is meant to reflect a social ideal
or linked to a particular social identity or group (Blom 2005; Tiesler 2013).
In this case, the transformation is not an individual’s decision or choice but
that of the family or broader society who apply the techniques to modify the
head shape of growing infants. The body becomes a ‘social canvas’ to the
broader cultural group who ‘read’ the message that has been embodied in the
shape of the skull. The living body is a vehicle for identity and expression.
These physical transformations reflect the assigned living social identity of
the individual and membership to the group through shared experiences. In
embodiment theory, the personhood of an individual can extend beyond the
boundaries of the body and beyond life itself as even in death the body or its
parts can be an instrument of meaning through ritual transformation (Strath-
ern and Stewart 2011: 390), including the creation of venerated ancestors
(Geller 2012).
The human body is a natural construction that changes due to organic
and developmental processes as well. From birth, human physical bodies are
constantly transforming themselves as individuals grow through childhood,
and even as adults, tissues are engaged in constant renewal and eventual
degeneration as they approach the end of life (Sofaer 2006b). Throughout
an individual’s life their body is adapting to living experiences and stimuli.
Skeletal remains are frequently the only material discovered in archaeological
contexts and they retain a record of that lived experience. They are influenced
and shaped by external forces and cultural decisions. So the body is a place
where we can see life, and lived experiences, reflected.
Archaeological theorists have argued that we can use the body as a mate-
rial artifact and like many others it tells a story of creation, formation, and
change (Meskell 2000). In some ways the body can be objectified in order
to study it as a whole unit, or partially it can be considered as individually
significant components, such as the head (Bonogofsky and Larsen 2011; So-
faer 2006a). So the body can be studied in its totality, observing, measuring,
and describing specifics in form. But we also recognize in archaeology that
the deposition of artifacts is also significant to understanding their meaning.
Thus, the placement and treatment of the human body in the archaeological
record and in association with other artifacts and materials is also a vital part
of understanding its significance.
Transformation and Manipulation of the Body

I have alluded to change in the body. During natural life, our bodies grow and
change and after death, decomposition begins. Thus, the body is not static but
dynamic and responsive. There are also transformations and manipulations
that reflect intentional acts; ones that may have specific social, political, or
symbolic meaning if explored within the broader cultural context (Geller
2006). While living we are the primary agents that use our bodies, but the
dead body has a similar type of power and can be treated and manipulated
extensively by others. In death, the body is often moved and modified by the
living as part of mortuary rituals that reflect broader social goals, which may
have little to do with individual identity (Fowler 2008).
Natural vs. Cultural Transformation
At death, the body is naturally changed from living to dead organism; but
also from person to corpse or something else based on individual cultural
perspectives (Hertz 1960 [1907]; Metcalf and Huntington 1991). The first
is an organic biological change; alive to not alive. All societies around the
world and in the past have ways of dealing with dead bodies (Parker Pearson
1999; Van Gennep 1960). We observe these mortuary practices, preparing the
body and placing it in some socially appropriate context, such as a tomb, or
cremating the remains, but we have carefully observed that there are culturally
defined distinctions in treatment. Members of the community are expected
to be treated one way and non-members or classified others are often treated
differently. Sometimes the circumstances around death also introduce a dif-
ferent method of treating the dead, such as death by unnatural causes, or an
individual who committed a crime and was punished with dead (Shay 1985).
Often called deviant deaths, most societies reserve special treatment for those
that fall into these culturally specific categories (Eeckhout and Owens 2008;
Ucko 1969; Weiss-Krejci 2008). Here my goal is not to list out all types of
deviant deaths, but focus specifically on how variation from the normal body
mortuary treatment is evident in sacrificial death.
The Political and Social Body

In death, the body can continue to be used as an active agent in social and
also political venues, the interpretation of which returns us to the works of
Foucault and Douglas (Douglas 1996; Foucault 1978; Hill 2000; Meskell
2000, 2002). The development of embodiment theory stages the individual as
representative of a shared collective, but individuals also can display unique
personal experiences shaped by a myriad of independent social factors and
decisions. Yet, there are times when that individuality, identity, or agency
is subsumed within a broader collective especially the manipulation of the
body through and after death where society or its mediators work to use the
body in other ways.
Although outside of the Andean region, there is a modern example in
the preservation and curation of the body of ex-first lady of Argentina, Eva
Duarte de Peron in 1947 (Taylor 1979). After her death at a young age, her
body was carefully prepared and preserved in such a way that it would appear
as though in life. She laid in state, visible to the public for a number of years
until her husband President Juan Peron was ousted from power. Yet her body
still served an important political and social function. The very fact that it
was protected and hidden, to prevent social uprising against the new regime,
is significant of its symbolic value. The fact that the body was not destroyed
or let decompose naturally is also telling. For some she still embodied the
“hope” of the nation. Hidden in Milan, Italy for many years, her body was
returned to Argentina in 1974, by Peron’s new wife, again to be used to sup-
port the new Mrs. Peron’s political aspirations. There is nothing like using the
preserved body of your husband’s dead wife to support your political career.
Eva Peron’s power and symbolic value continued long after her death, and
in essence, her body had an extensive political career.
Inca Mummies
More specific to the archaeological history of the Central Andes, there are
various examples where human bodies were used to embody social relation-
ships of power. The ancient Inca also demonstrated how the mummified
remains of their ancestors were political agents (Bauer 2004; Buikstra and
Nystrom 2003). The dead bodies of Inca rulers and nobility were carefully
prepared and maintained with resources, and as though living, were provided
with constant attention, servants, food, and riches. They were consulted for
advice and information, and were vital parts of decision-making process. Not
all members of Inca society received this mortuary treatment and thus, only
certain bodies became venerated ancestor objects (Bauer 2004; Rowe 1946).
The Inca also captured the huacas (sacred places or objects such as mum-
mified bodies of leaders of rival or conquered groups) and in transporting
these corporeal remains great distances to Cusco (basically holding the dead
bodies hostage), the Inca were able to negotiate control over different regions
(Cobo 1990 [1653]). These dead bodies became political prisoners, thus re-
flecting the nature of the dead in past Andean societies as active and powerful
players in social and political activities. The Spanish quickly recognized this
element and the ‘Expiration of Idolatry’ campaign focused on the destruction
of mummified ancestors, and the desecration of tombs and any preserved
mortal remains (Arriaga 1968 [1621]; Bauer 2004; Rostworoski de Diez
Canseco 1999). By destroying Inca mummies across the region, the European
colonizers also successfully destroyed an essential part of the socio-political
system that linked social power with ancestral remains.
Trophy Heads
Another example of how the body (or part) can be used for social or politi-
cal purposes is the creation of trophy heads (Bonogofsky and Larsen 2011).
Specifically in the ancient Andes, the work by Tung (2007) exploring the
transformation of bodies into trophy heads during Wari imperial expansion
(AD 600–1000) demonstrates a further political but also symbolic engagement
of the body. These trophy heads taken from recently deceased individuals of
both local and foreign origins were highly standardized in their production and
often suspended vertically for public display (Tung 2007; Tung and Knudson
2009). These human body parts were created and actively used for a time for
ritual and political ends, though later buried in a sacred place.
The north coast Moche (AD 100–800) (Verano et al. 1999), the south coast
Nasca (AD 1–600) (Proulx 1989, 2001), and later Inca (Ogburn 2007) also
selected the head as a trophy and transformed it for public spectacles where
it became a vehicle for transmitting messages. While the earlier Nasca tradi-
tion appears to have a more ritual function, Ogburn (2007) argued that for the
Inca, the head’s primary purpose was to establish and reinforce positions of
status and power, and decapitation was used in punishment. Although these
trophies may have also had other meanings related to control of the essence
of the deceased similar to practices of the Jivaro headhunters of Ecuador
(Harner 1972). Thus, prepared heads were specifically used in active public,
ritual, and political activities.
Moche Secondary Burials
In another final example of corporeal transformation, the Moche buried their
dead in tombs; however, clear archaeological evidence demonstrates that in
some cases they were disinterring remains or (once individuals had been
skeletonized) only parts were being removed from tombs (Millaire 2004;
Nelson 1998). These behaviors suggest that the Moche did not necessarily
perceive of the dead as inert and passive materials but rather that they still
contained some essence that could be accessed and thus touching or moving
skeletal remains was not taboo. Pauketat (2010) argues that inanimate objects
can be invested with agency, including bones. While there are interpretations
of human remains, especially mummies as mallqui or seeds, human bones
as well are linked to fertility as they are ‘planted’ in the ground. Similarly, it
appears these traditions of returning to exhume and rebury deceased family
members continued into early Colonial times (Klaus and Tam 2015; Salomon
2015), where in the Lambayeque Valley at the Chapel of San Pedro de Mor-
rope, burials in the floors exhibit signs of secondary treatments, ossuaries,
and collections of certain skeletal elements for placement in new locations.
The Body Symbolic

The body or its parts, in the case of trophy heads, demonstrate the symbolic
power of the body as a cultural object or signifying artifact (Geller 2012). In
rituals and ceremonial action, the human body is also a tool for the expression
of meaning, where symbols and ideas are played out in the manipulation of
the body. Therefore, the treatment and placement of the sacrificed body is
important to understanding the sacrificial process and the meaning behind it.
Sacrifice is a ritual of transformation that can involve simple manipula-
tion of the remains (placement of the dead body or limbs in different ways),
but rituals can also involve more dramatic destructive acts (cutting, opening,
dismemberment, defleshing, decapitation, removal of parts) (Tiesler 2007).
Depending on the manipulation or transformation we can infer possible
symbolic meanings and how these acts relate to the individual sacrificed or
to the specific ritual performed (Hill 2000). This needs to be done within
the relevant cultural context. It is clear that among many Andean cultures
concepts of the body in ritual involved the creation and maintenance of a
symbolic interaction between the dead body and society that continued long
after death (Tung 2007).
BIOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES OF
PERI-MORTEM TREATMENT OF HUMAN BODIES
The bioarchaeological approach focuses on the analysis the skeletal and/
or mummified human remains recovered from different mortuary contexts
(Larsen 1997; Weiss-Krejci 2011). Recent excavations in the Andes have
included the recovery of human remains from large and small cemeteries, but
also isolated finds within and around certain types of architecture and urban
spaces that suggest the context of death and meaning of those burials was
distinct from traditional mortuary practices (Lau 2015; Millaire 2002; Verano
1995). This approach is significant for two reasons since it infers that the body
is a reflection of the life lived but also explores the treatment of the body after
death. The body is the mortal remains of a human being and it contains many
clues that reflect aspects of the individual’s lived experience. The analysis
of the skeleton can estimate age at death, sex of the individual, evidence of
dietary patterns, relative health status, types of diseases suffered, accidental
or violent trauma survived, but also can provide clues to population of origin,
mobility, and genetic relatedness to others (Buzon 2012; Larsen 1997).
After death, the treatment of the corpse is also relevant and can be observed
in the archaeological record but it requires a detailed approach to mortuary
excavation and recovery. Some researchers have described this approach as
“Ethnothanotology” or “Archaeothanatology” based on model proposed by
Henri Duday (2006), whereby mortuary contexts are investigated in a forensic-
like manner to recover specific details related to the deposition of the dead
(Klaus and Tam 2015). Duday (2009: 6) argues the goal is “to reconstruct
the attitudes of ancient populations towards death by focusing on the study
of the human skeleton and analyzing the acts linked to the management and
treatment of the corpse.” It is here that we can interpret body preparation
techniques, body wrappings/painting, limb manipulation, body placement,
positioning, and completeness of remains, which can reflect post-mortem
activities, secondary treatments, or post-depositional movement. Therefore,
the treatment, placement, and manipulation of the body can be identified and
explored. In sacrificial contexts, this approach allows us to identify who the
victims of sacrifice may have represented in society and how they, and their
bodies, were treated, during and after sacrifice rituals.
Veneration and Violation in Deviant Burials

To interpret this body treatment we turn to an anthropological model of death
and the various ways that bodies and body parts can be used in rituals (Tiesler
2007). One model that is of particular relevance to exploring the treatment of
the body and the body sacrificed is a simple continuum described by Duncan
(2005). He outlines a theoretical approach based on Bloch’s (1992) model of
death as a transition from life to death that involves violence, separation, and
reintegration. The expression of violence demonstrates the attitudes towards
the dead and death of the individual and that these were part of a generative
act or a destructive act that may involve the peri-mortem (around the time of
death) or post-mortem (after death) manipulation of the body and its disposal.
In this model, there are stages or transitions that the individual/body passes
through at death, shifted from each stage to the next by a type of violence.
Violence is thus seen as a necessary part of death (the end of life is violent),
but how it is used or manifested can be significantly different. Duncan (2005)
argues that violence can be used to venerate or violate the dead. In acts of
veneration, the deceased and their bodies are treated in a way to demonstrate
respect, honor, and concern for the individual identity (or soul), or constitu-
tion of the dead. Violation, on the other hand, disregards these elements and
the purpose is isolating and destructive. Duncan (2005) explains how this
can be well served within a bioarchaeological approach using the treatment,
placement and associations of the body in mortuary contexts, to identify if
the body is venerated or violated in death according to particular patterns
and expected social norms in mortuary practices. Here again the archaeo-
thanatologial approach facilitates the acquisition of this information (Duday
2006) and models of burial deviancy focusing on human sacrifice developed
by Eeckhout and Owens (2008) are also useful.
This dichotomy may not necessarily be strict or straightforward and we
may see varying degrees of treatment that can be interpreted in different ways.
What can this manipulation in sacrifice rituals reveal about the concepts of
sacrificial death as different from ‘normal’ death? Does decapitation reflect
violation? Or could this symbolize some other honorable treatment? To
decapitate is to separate and in essence destroy, but could this also mean to
liberate and set free the spirit, to reconnect with other spirits? How can we
differentiate between these interpretations effectively? I argue that we can
use the treatment of the body as a place where these ritual experiences were
transcribed and can be understood within a broader Andean framework.
THE SACRIFICED BODY AT TÚCUME

I now turn to the archaeological site of Túcume to provide an example of
how the body is transformed in sacrifice. Túcume is located on the northern
coast of Peru, near the modern city of Chiclayo (Figure 1). The settlement
developed around the base of a large rock outcropping, Cerro La Raya, which
dramatically rises out of the naturally flat desert plain surrounding it. Twenty-
six monumental adobe mudbrick platform mounds are arranged to the north
and northwest of the cerro. These massive ceremonial and administrative
structures reflect the combined nature of religious and political power central-
ized at this site. Archaeological work spans the previous century but in the last
thirty years dedicated efforts by Alfredo Narváez and Bernarda Delgado have
transformed our understanding of the occupation of this site (Narváez Vargas
1995a; Narváez Vargas and Delgado Elías 2011, 2013). The chronology of
Túcume is well defined and archaeological work has identified the earliest
constructions during the Late Intermediate Period (AD 1000–1470) through
Late Horizon (AD 1470–1545), including defined Lambayeque, Chimú, and
Inca cultural occupations (Sandweiss 1995; Schaedel 1951).
Figure 1: Map of Peru showing where Túcume is located compared to other sites men-
tioned in the text.
Figure 2: Photo of the small inner chamber of the Templo de la Piedra Sagrada with the
large sacred stone in situ.
To date, a number of mortuary contexts have been identified at Túcume

including clear cemetery areas and middle elite tombs, but also burials from
within different architectural structures (Narváez 1995a). An examination of
the skeletal remains demonstrates mortuary contexts that could be described
as ‘traditional’ or modal burials, but also human remains from secondary
offerings and deposits as well as clear evidence of human sacrifice (Toyne
2002, 2011a, 2011b, 2012). This variation at a single site is interesting but
will be explored elsewhere.
The mortuary context of the Templo de la Piedra Sagrada (TPS) is a patio in
front of a small temple structure (approximately 8 meters square) located east
of the base of the Huaca Larga (Figure 2). The patio area (~25 by 25 meters)
was enclosed with walls and parallel walkways, which appear to have guided
people entering the site around this sacred area. The temple went through
various reconstruction phases reflecting the different cultural occupations of
the site, with the focus of the building remodeled around a large basalt stone
vertically implanted in the center. Benches with niches around the stone
contained 1000s of metal miniature offerings as well as sacred spondylus
shell artifacts (Narváez Vargas 1995b). These ritual offerings began during
early use of the location and continued throughout the occupation of the site
until the Late Horizon, although the Inca added their own unique offerings.
In the patio area directly to the north of the temple entrance initial ex-
plorations identified a series of human and animal burials (Narváez Vargas
1995b), but organized in a pattern deviant from the other local cemeteries.
An investigation in 2005 expanded the archaeological excavations to in-
PROYECTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN, CONSERVACIÓN Y PUESTA EN

VALOR DEL COMPLEJO ARQUEOLÓGICO DE TÚCUME
Sitio: Templo de la
EH 48 – Fosa 48
Piedra Sagrada
Unidad VII G Dibujo de Planta
Registro: Mag. Marla Toyne

Fecha: 3 de Octobre 2005
Arql. Natalia Guzmán
Dibujo Original: M. Toyne Digitalizado por: N. Guzmán
Figure 3: Illustration of the burial pit with skeletal remains in situ (EH48, a young adult
male in a tightly flexed body position). Note the displacement of the skull from the body.
clude the majority of the patio within the wall enclosure around the temple
resulting in the discovery of 95 burial cuts of fairly shallow burials, each
one proportional to the size of the human body within (Figure 3) (Toyne
2008). The majority of the burial pits were oblong, oval, or circular in shape
and the head of the individual was oriented consistently to the east of the
pit facing the feet to the west. There was only some minor variation to this
overall pattern but it is not clear what this variation may reflect since it is not
differently distributed spatially, chronologically, or contextually. In addition
to the human remains, there were almost 80 skeletonized juvenile camelids
(llamas or alpacas), whose remains were within individualized pits, singly or
in pairs, or intermixed within pits with human remains. These juvenile animals
demonstrate cut marks consistent with having their throats cut but not with
defleshing or dismemberment and were thus buried as complete offerings
and not butchered for food. Their sacrifice may have been as a substitute for
a human life (cf. Girard 1977 [1972]); perhaps as a parallel type of offering
although their bodies were not manipulated to the same extent as the humans.
These animals were either placed with neck extended and limbs extended
along the body on one side, or tightly flexed with the head over the tail. The
difference in these treatments is not distributed differently across the patio
in any apparently meaningful way.
Figures 4a, b, c: Photos of individuals with different burial positions: a) extended (EH56,
a young adult male), b) semi-flexed (EH34, a middle-aged male), c) tightly flexed (EH54,
young adolescent possible male).
All the human bodies were consistently placed supine within the burial
pits in 3 basic body positions based on the placement of the limbs. The first
was completely extended, with legs straight and the arms either extended
or place across the lower or upper torso (Figure 4a). The second position,
was considered semi-flexed where the legs were crossed at the ankles and
the knees separated (Figure 4b). The arms were either extended by the sides
or also slightly flexed and hands across the body. Finally, some individuals
were in a hyper-flexed position with the legs tightly flexed on top of the body,
knees to the chest (Figure 4c). The arms were flexed across the upper torso.
There are no examples where the limbs were randomly placed, sprawled, or
above the head.
The archaeological and skeletal analyses of these human remains revealed
that most were complete and articulated individuals and thus reflected primary
burial contexts (Toyne 2008, 2011a, 2015). Some of the pits overlapped, and
thus cut into previous burials causing some secondary post-mortem distur-
bance and unintentional fragmentation of some individuals. However, it is
clear that they were originally interred complete. Additionally, this process
of overlap and superposition of pits and bodies reflects that each individual
was interred separately and the remains represent a long-term accumulation
of individual offerings within a similar ritual framework. The subsequent
disturbance of the body occurred after a sufficient interval where the body
had decomposed or desiccated in such a way so that the individual skeletal
Figure 5: Photo of disarticulated pile of skeletal remains—Group #17 clustered on oc-

cupational floor along east wall.
elements could be displaced without moving other associated elements. In

some cases where the skeleton had been almost completely disturbed by a
later interred individual, the disturbed remains of the former were included
scattered within the pit fill on top of the latter. In some other cases, disturbed
and disarticulated skeletal elements were collected into secondary deposition
levels of fill (Figure 5). These skeletal elements, including many crania, were
matched to individuals buried in pits whose cranial remains were missing.
Many remains were still articulated when reburied, an observation consis-
tent with an interpretation that they were desiccated and held together by
adhering, but dried soft tissue structures. There is no skeletal evidence of cut
marks along joints consistent with limb dismemberment. This is secondary
manipulation of the remains but appears as a type of clean up once bones
were already dry and disarticulated.
A total of 116 individuals were identified including 47 juveniles (between
5 and 18 years) and 69 adults (19–50 years). While all the adults were sexed
as males, the sex of the juveniles cannot be determined. Physical analysis of
the skeletal remains reveals further details of how the body was manipulation
based on the consistent location of cut marks (Toyne 2011a). Almost all indi-
viduals (93%) demonstrated fine linear incisions across the bones of the throat
and upper chest. The location of these cuts on bones and the associated soft
Figures 6a, b, c: Photo illustrating the

location of cut marks on different skeletal
elements: a) medial end of the clavicle
(EH23, a young adolescent possible male),
b) upper sternum (EH9, a young adult
male), c) anterior and inferior portion of
the cervical vertebra (EH1b, a young adult
male). White arrows indicate location of
cut marks on bone.
tissues that would have been severed indicate three types of cutting patterns:
1) incisions across the base of the throat (the medial clavicle, 1st rib, and 6th
or 7th cervical vertebra) (Figure 6a); 2) incisions vertically along the anterior
thorax elements (medial clavicle, 1st rib, manubrium of the sternum) (Figure
6b); and 3) incisions horizontally high across and bisecting the upper neck
(cervical vertebra 1 through 5) (Figure 6c). These patterns are interpreted as
specific activity signatures associated with deeply slitting the throat, opening
the chest cavity, and decapitation.
While cut marks were identified on almost every individual, these three
activity signatures were not evenly distributed (Table 1, next page). Some
individuals had evidence of all three types of activities (32.6%), while others
had various combinations of two activities, and fewer individuals had only
evidence of one type of activity. In some cases missing skeletal elements may
have prevented recognizing multiple activities but the overall pattern is that
more than one type of ritual activity was being performed on most individu-
als. These data suggest a complex ritual sequence (throat, heart, head) took
place repeatedly at this temple over time (Toyne 2011a, 2015).
Table 1. Distribution of Activities among TPS Individuals

Total
N=95 100%
No Cut Marks 6 6.3%
Throat 60 63.2%
Chest Opening 67 70.5%
Decapitation 72 75.8%
Single Activity 21.1%

Throat only 6 6.3%
Decapitation only 6 6.3%
Chest only 8 8.4%
Two Activities 40.0%

Throat/Decapitation 7 7.4%
Throat/Chest 16 16.8%
Decapitation/Chest 15 15.8%
Three Activities
Decapitation/Throat/Chest 31 32.6%
DISCUSSION
The focus of this research was to use a bioarchaeological approach to analyze
the mortuary context and remains to determine the nature of these burials
associated with the temple space. The possible social origin of the victims
may play a role in how they were treated after death but this is discussed
elsewhere (Toyne 2008). Burial and skeletal data reveal a complex series of
symbolic manipulations of the bodies consistent with ritual death or human
sacrifice. Using a corporeal approach, we can advance our understanding of
this context. I argue that we can identify specific patterns in the sacrificed
body that elucidate aspects of the ritual activities and practices involving both
peri-mortem and post-mortem treatment in which the death and identity of the
victim was not likely the most significant part of the ritual event. Hill (2000)
argues that in sacrifice the body is the physical medium of communication
between the living and the supernatural and the transformation of the body is
necessary in order to transcend between worlds. The specific ways in which
the body is manipulated and treated reflects the importance of the collective’s
needs more than just the individual’s death (McClymond 2011).
Symbolism in Peri-mortem Body Manipulation

The evidence of peri-mortem cutting of soft tissues demonstrates that these
individuals’ bodies were transformed in a systematic way to allow the ex-
traction of specific elements of the body; namely blood, the heart, and the
head. The cuts identified on the bones for any of these activities would have
resulted in death due to exsanguiation, but it is most likely that the ritual was
performed in this order (Toyne 2011a). Bioarchaeological and physiological
evidence supports that especially for individuals where all three activities
were performed on the body, throat slitting likely took place first, followed
by opening the chest cavity and finally, decapitation as the finishing rite. Ex-
ploring Andean archaeological, ethnohistorical, and ethnographical sources
can elucidate possible shared symbolic meanings of each of these.
Significance of Blood
Blood played an important role in Andean ritual. Classen (1993) describes
blood as a preeminent symbol of passage and transition. In the Moche fine-
line illustration of the Sacrifice Ceremony (Donnan and McClelland 1999;
Toyne 2011a) one of the individuals in the lower register is cutting the throat
of a bound individual and holding a cup in the other hand. It is argued that
the cup of collected of blood is then presented to an anthropomorphized
supernatural, Figure A, in the upper register. De Bock (2005) argues that
blood is a metaphor for water, and that the spilling of blood will induce the
water to flow from the mountains signaling the start of the rainy season and
agricultural productivity.
Information from the early historical documents also describe the im-
portance of blood and its distribution in Inca rituals. Xérez (1872 [1534]:
32) states that blood was used to anoint the faces of the idols and the doors
of the temples, as well as the sepulchers of the dead. Murua (1987 [1590])
explains that the priests also transported the blood of animal sacrifices in
jars to be offered to huacas (sacred places or objects) along the ceremonial
processions that led the capac hucha to their deaths. Some huacas included
the mummified bodies or stone representations of ancestral remains. These
huacas were ritually fed blood by being anointed with it; so they would use
their supernatural powers in support of the state and for the wishes of the
Inca (Classen 1993). Modern ethnographies describe the use and importance
of blood in rituals as necessary offerings connected to the flow of water and
fertility (Bolin 1998; Gose 1994).
At the TPS, over 60% of the victims demonstrate cuts across the base of
the throat indicating that their throats had been slit. Since it is possible to
cut an individual’s throat and cause a fatal injury without striking the bone,
this frequency may have been higher. Whether the blood was collected
is unknown, but seems likely since this was first part of a series of ritual
activities that would have split a great deal of blood. In cases where the
individual was decapitated (based on cuts higher on the neck), or had their
chest opened, why cut the throat of an already dead individual? This would
serve little purpose other than further mutilation. The presence of a huanca
(sacred standing stone) within the temple suggests a possible focus for the
blood offering (Toyne 2015; Xérez 1872 [1534]). At Punta Lobos (Huarmey
Valley, ~AD 1350), there was a mass execution also with evidence of con-
sistent cutting at the base of the throat (Verano and Toyne 2011). However,
the mortuary treatment at Punta Lobos including blindfolds, bound hands,
and lack of relationship to ceremonial architecture suggests that slitting of
the throat was likely a means of execution. There was also no evidence of
decapitation. Although possible, it is unclear if the blood was ceremoniously
collected in that case either.
Significance of the Head
The head appears to have had special importance in Andean ideology based
on iconographic and archaeological finds. Verano (2001: 172) describes
decapitation at the hands of a supernatural as the “quintessential signifier of
ritual death in the Andean world.” The decapitator theme was prevalent in
the iconography of many different prehispanic cultures beginning as early
as 1500 BC (Benson 2001). During Moche and Nasca times, severed heads
were illustrated in iconography with supernatural-like figures holding a tumi
blade (crescent-shaped) in one hand and a severed head in the other, or as
disembodied heads in association with the sacrifice theme (Verano et al.
1999). Examples of decapitation in Chimú iconography do not depict a deity
but a human figure holding a knife in one hand standing over a prone victim
holding the head up to expose the throat (Toyne 2008). The representational
change in who is doing the decapitating (from deity to human) may suggest
an ideological shift in who controls the rituals. This artistic representation
may represent only cutting the throat, not decapitation, but either is possible.
Numerous archaeological examples of decapitated individuals have been
discovered. The skeletal remains from the Huacas de Moche context, Plaza
3A and Plaza 3C, include a number of individuals whose heads were severed
from their bodies (Hamilton 2005; Verano 2005). After the separation, the
heads were not re-associated with rest of the body. At Dos Cabezas in the
Jequetepeque Valley, a collection of disembodied skulls was discovered in
a room as a cache (Cordy-Collins 2001). As mentioned, among the Nasca
(Forgey and Williams 2003; Verano 1995) and Wari (Tung 2007), heads were
removed and specifically prepared for long term use as ritually or culturally
valuable objects. Since in many cases the mandible was still articulated, it
was assumed that they were prepared soon after death and not likely removed
from mummified remains.
The Inca believed that passage into the afterlife required a complete
corpse, in addition to grave offerings (Betanzos 1996 [1557]). Decapitation
was considered a punishment during Inca times for severe crimes such as
mutiny or after battle to defile the enemy’s remains (Betanzos 1996 [1557];
Cieza de Leon 1963 [1538]; Montesinos 1920 [1644]; Ogburn 2007). When
Atahualpa was captured by the Spanish and condemned to die, he chose to
be baptized so that his body would not be burned and not able to participate
in the afterlife. However, the Spanish garroted him and not only physically
cut off his head but also symbolically dismembered the Inca state (Classen
1993: 114).
At the TPS, individuals were decapitated but the goal was not the removal
of the head for a trophy or for long-term display or other use. In only a few
cases, the cranium was later displaced once skeletonized. The only excep-
tions were the three crania (two clearly decapitated) buried within the temple
itself. Their bodies may have been interred in the patio area, although it was
not possible to match them to specific headless skeletons. Severing the head
was part of the complex ritual mutilation, but once completed, the head was
returned to its body for burial although not exactly re-articulated accurately
(Figure 3). This fact raises the question: Why remove the head at all? Re-
moval of the head may have been an important symbolic action to destroy
or transform the body (Hill 2000, 2003). Yet, the final mortuary treatment of
the offering or deceased appears to have required that the body be buried as
a complete entity perhaps to maintain its singular ritual value.
Significance of the Heart

In general, surgical removal of the heart is difficult due to its protected location
within the chest cavity, with the sternum in the front and ribs all around. It is
held in place by large blood vessels and strong pericardial tissues (Robicsek
and Hales 1984). Researchers from other regions of the ancient Americas
have proposed a number of different methods for accessing the heart based
on osteological evidence (Pijoan Aguade and Mansilla Lory 2004; Tiesler and
Cucina 2006). In the Maya region, some skeletons have cut marks along the
anterior surfaces of the thoracic vertebral bodies indicating that a knife was
likely used to cut the heart out of the chest by severing the major arterial and
venous structures that held it in place (Tiesler and Cucina, 2006). The Aztec
depict a victim bent backwards over an altar with a heart exposed within their
bisected chest and a priest-like individual standing over them (Robicsek and
Hales 1984). Colonial records report the Aztec sacrificer “snatched it [the
heart] out alive,” still beating and bleeding to demonstrate the skill of the
ritual specialist and add to the drama of the ritual performance (Landa 1941
[1579]: 118–119). Unlike the Maya and Aztec cultures of Mesoamerica, there
are no clear iconographic representations of heart sacrifice in the Andes.
At the TPS, there are vertical cuts across the anterior wall of the thorax
and in many cases accompanying fractures of the first ribs that suggest the
ribs were forcibly opened. Similar skeletal modification was observed at other
coastal Peruvian sites of Pacatnamú and Cerro Cerrillos, where investigators
also proposed heart removal (Klaus et al. 2010; Verano 1986). While this
creates an aperture in the anterior chest wall along the mid-line of the body,
there is no direct evidence that the goal was to remove the heart or any other
specific organ in the chest. The purpose may have been to simply create an
access to observe the inside of the body. It is through secondary sources that
the hypothesis of heart removal is supported.
Ethnohistoric documents discuss heart removal during later Inca times as
a form of human sacrifice (Murua 1987 [1590]) and interestingly also as a
method of punishment (Betanzos 1996 [1557]). Molina (1963 [1575?]: 55)
described heart sacrifice at Huanacaure near Cusco:
Y a otros sacaban los corazones, vivos, y así con ellos palpitando, les ofrecían
a las guacas a quien se hacia el sacrificio y con la sangre untaban casi de
oreja a oreja el rostro de la guaca, a lo cual llaman ‘pirac’, y a otros daban
el cuerpo con la dicha sangre; y así enterraban los cuerpos juntamente con
los demás sacrificios.
And others removed the hearts, from the living, and still beating, they would
offer these to the huacas and with the blood they would anoint the face of the
huaca from ear to ear, which they called ‘pirac’, and with others they would
dab blood on their bodies; and thus, bury the bodies together with the other
sacrifices. (my translation)
Andean ethnographic research has also reported the removal of the still beating
heart as a part of llama sacrifice (Gose 1994; Miller 1977). In the southern
highlands at Chumbivilcas, the number of heartbeats was used to predict the
fortune of a recently married couple. Alternatively, the removal of the llama
lungs for divination may have also been performed on humans (Betanzos
1996 [1557]; Sarmiento de Gamboa 2007 [1572]). Once finished with either
the heart or the lung, ethnohistoric documents suggest the organ was usually
burned and the body was buried or burned (Molina 1963 [1575?]). At the TPS,
there were no specific hearth or burnt areas identified in or near the temple
structure. The hearts may have been disposed of elsewhere or replaced within
the chest (as the heads were repositioned).
While the head is represented frequently in iconography, the symbolism

and importance of the heart is less clear. One can see body fragmentation in
the relief artwork at Cerro Sechin as well as the trophy heads of the Nasca
(DeLeonardis 2000). With these and other examples, Arnold and Hastorf
(2008) argue that the symbolism of severed heads (at least) can be linked to
political formation and control over the entire social and politic body. Perhaps
the heart and blood removal had similar symbolism, but even though there
was violent damage to the body (cutting and separation of parts), these ritual
acts were performed in a manner that reflected a generative act of veneration.
Concepts of Pain
During these rites which result in the death of the sacrifice, one can also
consider if the experience of physical pain or suffering by the victim was an
important constitute during the ceremony. There are no secondary documents
to elucidate if expressions of pain played a role in sacrifice, and therefore, this
remains speculate. Research in Mesoamerica has an important perspective to
offer. Baudez (2009), for example, argues that pain and self-sacrifice may have
increased the value and merit of the sacrifice. At the same time, at Túcume
the archaeological discovery of Amala or Ishpingo seeds on the occupational
floors and in a small cache near the outer wall of the patio may offer tentative
clues to what shaped the ritual experience of the victims. Identified as part of
modern shamanic ceremonies, Ishpingo (Nectandra sp.) are seeds that have
properties that when consumed in variable doses include euphoria, corporeal
paralysis, and anticoagulant (Montoya 1996). While ephermeral evidence,
it has been hypothesized that hallucinatory or psychotrophic plants with
these pharmaceutical effects may have been used in ancient rituals includ-
ing sacrifice (Montoya 1996). While in modern times they are consumed by
performers of rituals (shamans), if consumed in low doses by the victims, the
effects may have served to enhance the ritual or spiritual experience through
a heightened euphoric state. If consumed in slightly higher doses, victims
may have been in a paralytic state and therefore the physical suffering of the
ritual cutting of their bodies would have been subdued or mitigated by drugs.
These are tantalizing clues but ones that cannot be directly substantiated.
Treatment of the Body Post-mortem

Careful arrangement of the body, including orientation, re-placement of the
dismembered head, and organization of the arms and legs appears to have
been vital to the ritual process. The mutilated and dismembered body was
not abandoned in situ, left sprawled haphazardly on the surface, or amassed
in a collective grave as at Pacatnamú and Huacas de Moche (Verano 1986,
2005). The evidence suggests that the final burial of the body in an individu-
alized pit, supine, wrapped within a single cotton shroud was the final step
in the sacrifice ritual. Even so the dead body continued to be treated as an
individual sacred unit until completely interred. Once buried, if disturbed by
subsequent offerings, the displaced remains were reburied in the same pit or
nearby, at least maintaining some contextual continuity.
The orientation of the head relative to the feet had specific meaning with
a defined alignment between the mountains and the oceans from east to west,
even though this directionality was perpendicular to the major orientation of
the adjacent Huaca Larga monumental mound. The symbolic meaning of this
body placement has been explored elsewhere (Toyne 2008), but may connect
aspects of water flow of rivers from the mountain to the sea to agricultural
fertility; the rising of the sun over the hills; and revering the mountains as
the seat of ancestral supernatural power (McEwan and Van de Guchte 1992).
Completeness and Fragmentation

Even though the TPS individuals’ bodies were fragmented, the head separated
from the body, it was realigned (or at least placed) with the body within the
pit. The head was not cached separately, but the body was reunited and in-
terred complete. Classen (1993: 3) argued that the Inca considered the body
to be a biological metaphor of cosmic structures and processes and, as a unit,
integrated parts of a dynamic whole. Also part of this Incan cosmology was
the balance and reciprocity with the environment and the living communities.
Human sacrifice during Inca times appears to have fulfilled this equilibrium
and exchange system where human lives were offered in return for the needs
of the community in terms of increase or stability in agricultural or social
fertility. These later Inca models of sacrifice from historical documents
and inferred from archaeological finds provide a basis for exploring earlier
Andean cultural practices where parallels are evident, even though we are
always careful to avoid blanket lo andino expectations and interpretations.
The sacrifice rituals at the TPS occurred during pre-Inca times, yet dem-
onstrate concepts of the body as a complete unit and as made up of important
separate elements. At Túcume, the human body is the object of offering and
even though it is modified and separated through different ritual activities
these actions can be seen as acts of veneration and integration rather than
violation. In the end, the complete body was placed in an individual burial
pit within the temple patio, and specifically, the disembodied head was re-
turned to its approximate position. Again, this conforms to later Inca beliefs
that the bodies of sacrifices remain intact in order to embody the Inca ideal
of wholeness and sacredness, just as mummies were created to intentionally
preserve all the tissues of the body (Buikstra and Nystrom 2003). The act of
decapitation separates the head from the body and was used as a destructive
or punitive act during Inca times, yet the head in other Andean traditions was
also a valued object linked to ancestor vitality (Arnold and Hastorf 2008). As
Weismantel (2015) describes, the earlier Moche dead were honored and laid
to rest complete with clear ritual and lavishness. Although many tombs were
later re-accessed and skulls removed, in some cases the skulls were replaced
with ceramic head effigies as part of a continuing exchange with the ancestors.
Alternatively, Moche human sacrifice involved complex rituals of dismem-
berment and disarticulation. Hill (2000, 2003) argues that the very partitioning
of the Moche captives depicted in Moche fineline ceramic iconography and
as discovered in skeletal remains at Huaca de la Luna (Verano 2001, 2005)
reflects a sacrificial process where body parts were imbued with sacred
meaning after dismemberment and display. That meaning may not have been
strictly destructive but also generative; each piece may have been gifted or
placed as a dedicatory offering elsewhere. The Moche post-mortem ritual
treatment left the body parts disarticulated and exposed on the surface, or
later buried within temple remodeling events, but Hill (2003) argues that the
dismemberment was more than just a disposal strategy but also part of the
sacrificial act in creating separate sacred offerings from a single sacrificial
human vessel. Following Duncan and Schwartz (2014: 149) we can see a
sacred metamorphosis of the victim and his or her body parts through the
offering of their vital essences, allowing the community to engage in the
ultimate communication and exchange with the sacred. At the same time the
repeated practice evident for all bodies suggests that individual identity was
subsumed in the collective nature of the rite.
Once buried at the TPS, these human ritual offerings were complete and
they were not meant to be disturbed. However, when new burials were nec-
essary, the disturbance of previous offerings was not likely intentional, nor
were remains being curated elsewhere. Skeletal and partially mummified
remains were displaced, replaced, and removed during the burial of later
sacrifices. There were at least seventeen areas identified that appear to have
been secondary disposal sites for some remains, where skeletal elements
were collectively reburied. The highest proportion of remains in these pits
were cranium (often with articulated mandibles), but these remains could be
re-associated with disturbed, incomplete individuals demonstrating that no
specific element was being amassed or curated separately or elsewhere from
the rest of these remains. There is no evidence that decapitated heads were
kept or modified into trophies. Touching and moving the remains was not a
contaminating act for the living, but these remains were not further manipu-
lated or transformed; rather they were reburied once disturbed.
CONCLUSION
In this research I explored the bioarchaeology of ritual death via the body,
discussing how the sacrificed body can reveal important information about
individual lives and death, and sacrifice rituals and mortuary practices. If we
read the body as an artifact that is created and shaped by life, history, social
context, and mortuary beliefs, the symbolic nature of human sacrifices can be
identified in patterns of manipulation and disposal. This context at Túcume
is not unique to Peru or the north coast as other share similar features and
likely ritual beliefs, but the clear repetitive and consistent physical treatment
of the human offerings demonstrates a consistent concept of the body as a
whole and as essential parts of an intricate Andean cosmology. The violent
treatment and manipulation of the body in ritual practice was an act of ven-
eration and demonstrates a complexity that superseded the death or specific
identity of the victim.1
REFERENCES
Alanis, Guillermos. 2007. “Sacrifice and Ritual Body Mutilation in Postclassical
Maya Society: Taphonomy of the Human Remains From Chichen Itza’s
Cenote Sagrado.” In New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body
Treatments in Ancient Maya Society, ed. V. Tiesler and A. Cucina, 165–189.
New York: Springer.
Arnold, Denise Y., and Christine Ann Hastorf. 2008. Heads of State: Icons, Power, and
Politics in the Ancient and Modern Andes. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Arriaga, Father Pablo Joseph de. 1968 [1621]. The Extirpation of Idolatry in Peru.
Trans. L. C. Keating. Louisville: University of Kentucky Press.
Baudez, Claude-Francois. 2009. “Pretium Doloris, or the Value of Pain in
Mesoamerica.” In Blood and Beauty. Organized Violence in the Art and
Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, ed. H. Orr and R. Koontz,
269–290. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
I am grateful to many people for the outcome of this research including and espe-
1
cially Bernarda Delgado Elias as director of the Museo de Sitio de Túcume and my field
archaeologist Natalia Guzman Requena. I also thank Alfredo Narváez Vargas, Daniel
Sandweiss, Victor Curay Rufasto, Dr. Carlos Elera, Mellisa Lund Valle, Sara Baitzel, and
Elvis Mondragon. Special thanks to Dr. John Verano for his guidance. I greatly appreciate
the support of Maritza Villavicencio, organizer of the Peru Mágico III symposium spon-
sored by the Centro Cultural de Espana, Lima. Funding for fieldwork was provided by the
Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant No. 752-2004-0603),
BBC Television (U.K.), and Tulane University (New Orleans). I appreciate the engage-
ment and comments of two anonymous reviewers. Any errors are solely my responsibility.
Bauer, Brian S. 2004. Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Benson, Elizabeth. 2001. “Why Sacrifice?” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, ed.
E. P. Benson and A. G. Cook, 1–20. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Besom, John Thomas. 2009. Of Summits and Sacrifice: An Ethnohistoric Study of
Inka Religious Practices. Austin: University of Austin Press.
Betanzos, Juan de. 1996 [1557]. Narrative of the Incas. Trans. R. Hamilton and D.
Buchanan. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bloch, Maurice. 1992. Prey into Hunter: The Politics of Religious Experience.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blom, Deborah E. 2005. “Embodying Borders: Human Body Modification and
Diversity in Tiwanaku Society.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:
1–24.
Blom, Deborah E., and John W. Janusek. 2004. “Making Place: Humans as
Dedications in Tiwanaku.” World Archaeology 36(1): 123–141.
Bolin, Inge. 1998. Rituals of Respect: The Secret of Survival in the High Peruvian
Andes. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bonogofsky, Michelle, and Clark S. Larsen, eds. 2011. The Bioarchaeology of the
Human Head: Decapitation, Decoration and Deformation. Gainesville:
University of Florida Press.
Buikstra, Jane E., and Kenneth C. Nystrom. 2003. “Embodied Traditions: The
Chachapoya and Inka Ancestors. In Theory, Method and Practice in Modern
Archaeology, ed. R. Jeske and D. K. Charles, 29–48. London: Praeger Press.
Buzon, Michele R. 2012. “The Bioarchaeological Approach to Paleopathology.”
In A Companion to Paleopathology, ed. A. L. Grauer, 58–75. New York:
Blackwell Publishing.
Carr, Christopher. 1995. “Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-religious,
Circumstantial and Physical Determinants.” Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 2(2): 105–200.
Ceruti, Maria Constanza. 2004. “Human Bodies as Objects of Dedication at Inca
Mountain Shrines (North-Western Argentina).” World Archaeology 36(1):
103–122.
Chapman, John. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken
Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.
Chicoine, David. 2011. “Death and Religion in the Southern Moche Periphery:
Funerary Practices at Huambacho, Nepena Valley, Peru.” Latin American
Antiquity 22(4): 525–548.
Cieza de Leon, Pedro de. 1963 [1538]. The Second Part of the Chronicle of Peru.
Trans. C. R. Markham. New York: Burt Franklin.
Classen, Constance. 1993. Inca Cosmology and the Human Body. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Cobo, Bernabe. 1990 [1653]. Inca Religion and Customs. Trans. R. Hamilton. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Cordy-Collins, Alana. 2001. “Decapitation in Cupisnique and Early Moche Societies.”

In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, ed. E. P. Benson and A. G. Cook, 21–34.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
de Bock, Edward K. 2005. Human Sacrifices for Cosmic Order and Regeneration:
Structure and Meaning in Moche Iconography Peru, AD 100–800. Oxford:
BAR International Series 1429.
DeLeonardis, Lisa. 2000. “The Body Context: Interpreting Early Nasca Decapitated
Burials.” Latin American Antiquity 11(4): 363–386.
Dillehay, Tom D., ed. 1995. Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Donnan, Christopher B. 1995. “Moche Funerary Practice. In Tombs for the Living:
Andean Mortuary Practices, ed. T. D. Dillehay, 111–160. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Donnan, Christopher B., and Carol J. Mackey. 1978. Ancient Burial Patterns of the
Moche Valley, Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Donnan, Christopher B., and Donna McClelland. 1999. Moche Fineline Painting. Its
Evolution and its Artists. Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural
History.
Douglas, Mary. 1996. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution
and Taboo. London: Routlege and Kegan Paul.
Duday, Henri. 2006. “L’archeothanatologie ou l’archeologie de al mort.” In Social
Archaeology of Funeral Remains, ed. R. L. Gowland and C. J. Knüsel, 30–56.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Duday, Henri, Anna Maira Cipriani, and John Pearce, eds. 2009. The Archaeology
of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Trans. A. M. Cipriani and J.
Pearce. Studies in Funerary Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Duncan, William N. 2005. “Understanding Veneration and Violation in the
Archaeological Record.” In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on
Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, ed. G. F. M. Rakita, J. E.
Buikstra, L. A. Beck, and S. R. Williams, 205–227. Gainesville: University
of Florida Press.
Duncan, William N., and Kevin Schwarz. 2014. “Partible, Permeable, and Relational
Bodies in the Maya Mass Grave.” In Commingled and Disarticulated Human
Remains: Working towards Improved Theory, Method and Data, ed. A.
Osterholtz, K. Baustian, and D. Martin, 149–172. New York: Springer.
Eeckhout, Peter, and Lawrence Stewart Owens. 2008. “Human Sacrifice at
Pachacamac.” Latin American Antiquity 19(4): 375–398.
Forgey, Kathleen, and Sloan R. Williams. 2003. “Cabezas trofeo nasca: Evidencias
osteológicas y arqueológicas de la colección de Kroeber.” Revista Andina
36: 237–261.
Fitzsimmons, James, and Izumi Shimada, eds. 2015. Living with the Dead in the
Andes. Volume II. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Fowler, Chris. 2008. “Fractal Bodies in the Past and Present.” In Past Bodies: Body-
Centered Research in Archaeology, ed. D. Boric and J. Robb, 47–57. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction. London:

Penguin.
Gaither, Catherine, Jonathan D. Kent, Victor Vasquez Sanchez, and Teresa Rosales
Tham. 2008. “Mortuary Practices and Human Sacrifice in the Middle Chao
Valley of Peru: Their Interpretation in the Context of Andean Mortuary
Patterning.” Latin American Antiquity 19(2): 107–132.
Geller, Pamela L. 2006. “Altering Identities: Body Modifications and the Pre-
Columbian Maya. In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, ed. R. Gowland
and C. Knusel, 279–291. Oxford: Alden Press.
Geller, Pamela L. 2012. “Parting (with) the Dead: Body Partibility as Evidence of
Ancestor Veneration. Ancient Mesoamerica 23(1): 115–130.
Girard, Rene. 1977 [1972]. Violence and the Sacred [La Violence et le Sacre].
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Gose, Peter. 1994. Deathly Waters and Hungry Mountains: Agrarian Ritual and
Class Formation in an Andean Town. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Green, Miranda Aldhouse. 2001. Dying for the Gods: Human Sacrifice in Iron Age
and Roman Europe. Charleston, SC: Tempus Publishing Limited.
Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. 1980 [1615]. El Primer Nueva Cronica y Buen
Gobierno. Trans. Tomo 1. J. Urioste. Volume 31. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno
Editores, S.A.
Hamilakis, Yannis, Mark Pluciennik, and Sarah Tarlow. 2002. “Introduction.
Thinking Through the Body.” In Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies
of Corporeality, 1–21. New York: Springer.
Hamilton, Laurel Anderson. 2005. “Cut Marks as Evidence of Precolumbian Human
Sacrifice and Postmortem Bone Modification on the North Coast of Peru.”
Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.
Harner, Michael J. 1972. The Jivaro. People of the Sacred Waterfalls. Garden City, NY:
The American Museum of Natural History. Doubleday/Natural History Press.
Hertz, Robert. 1960 [1907]. Death and the Right Hand. Trans. R. Needham and C.
Needham. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hill, Erica. 2000. “The Embodied Sacrifice.” Cambridge Journal of Archaeology
10(2): 317–26.
Hill, Erica. 2003. “Sacrificing Moche Bodies.” Journal of Material Culture 8:
285–299.
Hubert, Henri, and Marcel Mauss. 1964 [1898]. Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function.
Trans. E. E. Evans-Pritchard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Isbell, William H. 1997. Mummies and Mortuary Monuments: A Post-processual
Prehistory of Andean Social Organization. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kaulicke, Peter. 1997. Contextos funerarios de Ancon: Esbozo de una sintesis
analitica. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontifica Universidad Catolica del Peru.
Klaus, Haagen D., Jose Centurion, and M. Curo. 2010. “Bioarchaeology of Human
Sacrifice: Violence, Identity and the Evolution of Ritual Killing at Cerro
Cerrillos, Peru.” Antiquity 84(326): 1102–1122.
Klaus, Haagen D., and Manuel E. Tam. 2015. “Requiem Aeternum? Archaeothanatology
of Mortuary Ritual in Colonial Mórrope, North Coast of Peru.” In Between the
Living and the Dead, ed. I. Shimada and J. Fitzsimmons, 267–303. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Landa, Diego de. 1941 [1579]. Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan. Trans. A. M. Tozzer.
Cambridge: The Museum.
Larsen, Clark Spencer. 1997. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human
Skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lau, George F.. 2015. “The Dead and the Longue Duree in Peru’s North Highlands.”
In Living with the Dead in the Andes, ed. J. Fitzsimmons and I. Shimada,
200–244. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Martin, Debra L., Ryan P. Harrod, and Ventura R. Perez. 2014. Bioarchaeology. An
Integrated Approach to Working with Human Remains. New York: Springer.
McClymond, Kathryn. 2011. “Sacrifice and Violence.” In The Blackwell Companion
to Religion and Violence, ed. A. R. Murphy, 320–330. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
McEwan, Gordon F., and Maarten Van de Guchte. 1992. “Ancestral Time and
Sacred Space in Inca State Ritual.” In The Ancient Americas. Art from Sacred
Landscapes, ed. R. F. Townsend, 359–371. Chicago: The Art Institute of
Chicago.
Menzel, Dorothy. 1977. The Archaeology of Ancient Peru and the Work of Max Uhle.
Berkeley: R. H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California.
Meskell, Lynne. 2000. “Writing the Body in Archaeology. In Reading the Body:
Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. A. E. Rautman,
13–21. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Meskell, Lynne. 2002. “The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology.”
Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 279–301.
Metcalf, Peter, and Richard Huntington. 1991. Celebrations of Death: The
Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millaire, Jean-François. 2002. Moche Burial Patterns: An Investigation into
Prehispanic Social Structure. Volume 1066. Oxford: BAR International
Series 1066.
Millaire, Jean-François. 2004. “The Manipulation of Human Remains in Moche
Society: Delayed Burials, Grave Reopening, and Secondary Offerings of
Human Bones on the Peruvian North Coast.” Latin American Antiquity 15(4):
371–388.
Miller, George. 1977. “Sacrificio y beneficio de camelidos en el sur del Peru.” In
Pastores del Puna Uywamichiq Punarunakuna, 193–210. Lima: Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
Molina, Christoval de. 1963 [1575?]. An Account of the Fables and Rites of the Yncas.
Trans. C. R. Markham. New York: Burt Franklin Publisher.
Montesinos, Fernando de. 1920 [1644]. Memorias antiguas historiales del Peru.
Trans. P. Means. Volume 48. London, England: Hakluyt Society.
Montoya Vera, Maria. 1996. “Implicaciones del estudio de semillas rituales en la época
prehispánica.” Revista del Museo de Arqueología (Trujillo, Peru) 6: 203–219.
Moore, Jerry D. 2005. Cultural Landscapes in the Ancient Andes. Archaeologies of

Place. Boca Raton: University of Florida Press.
Murua, Martin. 1987 [1590]. Historia General del Peru. Volume 35. Madrid: Historia
16.
Narváez Vargas, Alfredo. 1995a. “Death in Ancient Túcume. The Southern Cemetery
and Huaca Facho.” In Pyramids of Túcume: The Quest for Peru’s Forgotten
City, ed. T. Heyerdahl, D. H. Sandweiss, and A. Narváez, 169–178. New York:
Thames and Hudson.
Narváez Vargas, Alfredo. 1995b. “The Pyramids of Túcume. The Monumental Sector.”
In Pyramids of Túcume: The Quest for Peru’s Forgotten City, ed. T. Heyerdahl,
D. H. Sandweiss, and A. Narváez, 79–130. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Narváez Vargas, Alfredo, and Bernarda Delgado Elias, eds. 2011. Huaca Las Balsas:
Arte Mural Lambayeque. Túcume: Museo de Sitio de Túcume.
Narváez Vargas, Alfredo, and Bernarda Delgado Elias, eds. 2013. Huaca I de Túcume.
Túcume: Museo de Sitio de Túcume.
Nelson, Andrew J. 1998. “Wandering Bones: Archaeology, Forensic Science and
Moche Burial Practices. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8:
192–212.
Noegel, Scott B. 2007. “Dismemberment, Creation, and Ritual: Images of Divine
Violence in the Ancient Near East.” In Belief and Bloodshed: Religion and
Violence across Time and Tradition, ed. J. K. Wellman, 13–27. Plymouth:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ogburn, Dennis E. 2007. “Human Trophies in the Late Pre-Hispanic Andes: Striving
for Status and Maintaining Power among the Incas and Other Societies.” In
The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians,
ed. R. Chacon and D. H. Dye, 505–521. New York: Springer Press.
Parker Pearson, Michael. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station,
TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Pauketat, Timothy R. 2010. “The Missing Persons in Mississippian Mortuaries.” In
Mississippian Mortuary Practices: Beyond Hierarch and the Representationist
Perspective, ed. L. P. Sullivan and R. C. Mainfort, 14–29. Gainesville:
University of Florida Press.
Pijoan Aguade, Carmen Maria, and Josefina Mansilla Lory. 2004. “Esternones
cortados? Evidencia de sacrificio human por extracción del corazón.” In
Perspectiva Tafonómica. Evidencias de Alteraciones en Restos Óseos del
México Prehispánico, ed. C. M. Pijoan A. and X. Lizarraga Cruchuaga, 69–85.
Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Proulx, Donald A. 1989. “Nasca Trophy Heads: Victims of Warfare or Ritual
Sacrifice?” In Cultures in Conflict: Current Archaeological Perspectives.
Proceedings from the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological
Association of the University of Calgary CHACMOOL, ed. D. C. Tkaczuk
and B. C. Vivian, 73–85. Calgary: The University of Calgary.
Proulx, Donald A. 2001. “Ritual Uses of Trophy Heads in Ancient Nasca Society.”
In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, ed. E. P. Benson and A. G. Cook, eds.
119–136. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Reinhard, Johan. 2005. The Ice Maiden: Inca Mummies, Mountain Gods, and Sacred
Sites in the Andes. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society.
Reinhard, Johan, and María Constanza Ceruti. 2010. Inca Rituals and Sacred
Mountains: A Study of the World’s Highest Archaeological Sites. Los Angeles:
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Robicsek, Fransi, and Donald Hales. 1984. “Maya Heart Sacrifice: Cultural Perspective
and Surgical Technique.” In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, ed. E.
Boone, 49–90. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Rostworoski de Diez Canseco, Maria. 1999. History of the Inca Realm. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, John H. 1946. “Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest.” In Handbook
of South American Indians, Volume 2, ed. J. H. Steward, 183–330. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology.
Rowe, John H. 1995. “Behavior and Belief in Ancient Peruvian Mortuary Practice.”
In Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices, ed. T. D. Dillehay,
27–49. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Ruiz Estrada, Arturo. 2009. “Sobre las formas de sepultamiento prehispánicas en
Kuelap, Amazonas.” Arqueologia y Sociedad 20: 1–16.
Salomon, Frank. 1995. “The Beautiful Grandparents: Andean Ancestor Shrines and
Mortuary Ritual as Seen through Colonial Records.” In Tombs for the Living:
Andean Mortuary Practices, ed. T. D. Dillehay, 315–353. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Sandweiss, Daniel H. 1995. “Cultural Background and Regional Prehistory.” In
Pyramids of Túcume: The Quest for Peru’s Forgotten City, ed. T. Heyerdahl,
D. H. Sandweiss, and A. Narváez, 56–78. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro. 2007 [1572]. History of the Incas. Trans. B. S. Bauer
and V. Smith. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Schaedel, R. P. 1951. “Major Ceremonial and Population Centers in Northern Peru.”
In Civilization of Ancient America, Selected Papers of the 29th International
Congress of Americanists, ed. S. Tax, 232–243. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Schultz, Celia E. 2010. “The Romans and Ritual Murder.” Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 78(2): 516–541.
Shay, Talia. 1985. “Differential Treatment of Deviancy at Death as Revealed in
Anthropological and Archaeological Material.” Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 4: 221–241.
Silverman, Helaine, and D. B. Small, eds. 2002. “The Space and Place of Death.”
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number
11.
Sofaer, Joanna. 2006a. The Body of Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sofaer, Joanna. 2006b. “Gender, Bioarchaeology and Human Ontogeny.” In Social
Archaeology of Funerary Remains, ed. R. Gowland and C. Knusel, 155–167.
Oxford: Alden Press.
Strathern, Andrew J., and Pamela J. Stewart. 2011. “Personhood; Embodiment

and Personhood.” In A Companion to the Anthropology of the Body and
Embodiment, ed. F. E. Mascia-Lees, 388–402. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Strong, William Duncan, and Clifford Evans. 1952. Cultural Stratigraphy in the
Viru Valley Northern Peru: The Formative and Florescent Epochs. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Taylor, Julie. 1979. Eva Peron: The Myths of a Woman. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tiesler, Vera. 2007. “Funerary or Nonfunerary? New References in Identifying Ancient
Maya Sacrificial and Postsacrificial Behaviors from Human Assemblages.” In
New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatment in Ancient
Maya Society, ed. V. Tiesler and A. Cucina, 14–44. New York: Springer.
Tiesler, Vera. 2013. The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications. New
York: Springer.
Tiesler, Vera, and Andrea Cucina. 2006. “Procedures in Human Heart Extraction
and Ritual Meaning: A Taphonomic Assessment of Anthropogenic Marks in
Classic Maya Skeletons.” Latin American Antiquity 17(4): 493–510.
Toyne, J. Marla. 2002. Tales Woven in their Bones: The Osteological Examination
of the Human Skeletal Remains from the Stone Temple at Túcume Perú.”
MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Western Ontario.
Toyne, J. Marla. 2008. “They Offered Their Hearts and Their Heads: A
Bioarchaeological Analysis of Ancient Human Sacrifice on the Northern Coast
of Peru.” PhD Thesis, Anthropology, Tulane University.
Toyne, J. Marla. 2011a. “Interpretations of Pre-Hispanic Ritual Violence at Tucume,
Peru, From Cut Mark Analysis.” Latin American Antiquity 22(4): 505–523.
Toyne, J. Marla. 2011b. “Investigación y Análisis de los Restos Humanos Excavados
en Huaca Las Balsas, Túcume.” In Huaca Las Balsas de Túcume: Arte Mural
Lambayeque, ed. A. Narváez Vargas and B. Delgado Elias, 195–203. Túcume,
Peru: Ediciones Museo de Sitio Túcume.
Toyne, J. Marla. 2012. “Análisis Osteológico de los Restos Humanos de Huaca Larga,
Tucume.” In Report on file with Bernarda Delgado. Tucume, Peru.
Toyne, J. Marla. 2015. “Ritual Violence and Human Offerings at the Temple of the
Sacred Stone, Túcume, Peru.” In Living with the Dead in the Andes, ed. J.
Fitzsimmons and I. Shimada, 173–199. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Tung, Tiffiny A. 2007. “From Corporeality to Sanctity: Transforming Bodies into
Trophy Heads in Pre-Hispanic Andes.” In The Taking and Displaying of
Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, ed. R. Chacon and D. H.
Dye, 481–504. New York: Springer Press.
Tung, Tiffiny A., and Kelly J. Knudson. 2009. “Social Identities and Geographical
Origins of Wari Trophy Heads from Conchopata, Peru.” Current Anthropology
49(5): 915–925.
Ucko, Peter J. 1969. “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary
Remains.” World Archaeology 1: 262–280.
Valeri, Valerio. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii.
Trans. P. Wissing Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Van Gennep, Arnold. 1960 [1909]. The Rites of Passage. Trans. M. B. Vizedom and
G. L. Caffee Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Verano, John W. 1986. “A Mass Burial of Mutilated Individuals at Pacatnamú.” In
The Pacatnamú Papers, Volume 1, ed. C. Donnan and G. A. Cock, 117–138.
Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History.
Verano, John W. 1995. “Where do they rest? The Treatment of Human Offerings
and Trophies in Ancient Peru.” In Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary
Practices, ed. T. D. Dillehay, 189–227. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
Verano, John W. 2001. “The Physical Evidence of Human Sacrifice in Ancient Peru.”
In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, ed. E. P. Benson and A. G. Cook, 165–184.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Verano, John W. 2005. “Human Sacrifice and Postmortem Modification at the Pyramid
of the Moon, Moche Valley, Peru.” In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives
on Mortuary Archaeology for the new Millennium, ed. G. F. M. Rakita, J. E.
Buikstra, L. A. Beck, and S. R. Williams, 277–289. Tampa: University of
Florida Press.
Verano, John W., and J. Marla Toyne. 2011. “Estudio bioantropológico de los restos
humanos del Sector II, Punta Lobos, Valle de Huarmey.” In Arqueología de
la Costa de Ancash, ed. M. Giersz and I. Ghezzi, 449–474. Lima: ANDES:
Boletin del Centro de Estudios Precolombinos de la Universidad de Varsovia.
Verano, John W., Santiago Uceda, Claude Chapdelaine, Richardo Tello, Maria Isabel
Paredes, and Victor Pimentel. 1999. “Modified Human Skulls from the Urban
Sector of the Pyramids of Moche, Northern Peru.” Latin American Antiquity
10(1): 59–70.
Weismantel, Karen. 2015. “Many Heads are Better Than One: Mortuary Practice
and Ceramic Art in Moche Society.” In Between the Living and the Dead, ed.
I. Shimada and J. Fitzsimmons, 76–100. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Weiss-Krejci, Estella. 2003. “Victims of Human Sacrifice in Multiple Tombs of the
Ancient Maya: A Critical Review.” In Antropologia de la Eternidad: La Muerte
en la Cultura Maya, ed. A. Ciudad, M. Humberto Ruz Sosa, and M. J. Iglesias
Ponce de Leon, 355–381. Madrid: Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Mayas/
Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nactional Autonomia de Mexico.
Weiss-Krejci, Estella. 2008. “Unusual Life, Unusual Death and the Fate of the Corpse:
A Case Study from Dynastic Europe.” In Deviant Burial in the Archaeological
Record, ed. E. M. Murphy, 169–170. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Weiss-Krejci, Estella. 2011. “The Formation of Mortuary Deposits: Implications
for Understanding Mortuary Behavior of Past Populations.” In Social
Bioarchaeology, ed. S. C. Agarwal and B. A. Glencross, 68–106. New York:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Xérez, Francisco de. 1872 [1534]. Reports on the Discovery of Peru. Trans. C. R.
Markham. Volume 47. London, England: Hakluyt Society.

The Body Sacrificed A Bioarchaeological

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Body Sacrificed A Bioarchaeological

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Religion and Violence.

© 2015. ISSN 0738-098X.

THE BODY SACRIFICED: A

Andean Mortuary Traditions

Regrettably, the recovery of ceramic and tomb information dramatically

BODY CONCEPT IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Transformation and Manipulation of the Body

The Political and Social Body

The Body Symbolic

Veneration and Violation in Deviant Burials

THE SACRIFICED BODY AT TÚCUME

To date, a number of mortuary contexts have been identified at Túcume

PROYECTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN, CONSERVACIÓN Y PUESTA EN

Unidad VII G Dibujo de Planta

Registro: Mag. Marla Toyne

Figure 5: Photo of disarticulated pile of skeletal remains—Group #17 clustered on oc-

elements could be displaced without moving other associated elements. In

Figures 6a, b, c: Photo illustrating the

Table 1. Distribution of Activities among TPS Individuals

Single Activity 21.1%

Two Activities 40.0%

Symbolism in Peri-mortem Body Manipulation

Significance of the Heart

While the head is represented frequently in iconography, the symbolism

Treatment of the Body Post-mortem

Completeness and Fragmentation

Cordy-Collins, Alana. 2001. “Decapitation in Cupisnique and Early Moche Societies.”

Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction. London:

Moore, Jerry D. 2005. Cultural Landscapes in the Ancient Andes. Archaeologies of

Strathern, Andrew J., and Pamela J. Stewart. 2011. “Personhood; Embodiment

You might also like