The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual: Three Andean Traditions

Author(s): Jerry D. Moore

Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Dec., 1996), pp. 789-802
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/681886
Accessed: 05/07/2010 12:06

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=black.

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 service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
 STATEUNIVERSITYI
JERRY D. MOORE / CALIFORNIA HILLS
DOMINGUEZ
The of Plazas
firehaeology
the of Ritual
Proxemies
ThreeAndeanTraditions
THE DOMAINOF THEPI>AZA is an arena for encoun-
ters,"observes RobertoDa Matta(1984:210),but plazas
are differently shaped and the encounters variously
experienced. In this essay, I develop an interactional
model linkingthe communicativeelements of ritual,the
proxemics of human communication, and the spatial
properties of plazas, which are simply unroofed, nondo-
mestic areas that are recognizable elements in the built
environment. However common as spatial arenas for
public ritualand ceremony,plazas are somewhat daunt-
ing subjects for archaeologicalanalysis. They seem fea-
tureless when compared to other constructed spaces.
Yet the cross-culturalsignificance of plazas makes them
simply too importantto be ignored, underscoring the
need for archaeologicalapproaches to such prehistoric
spaces.l
One approach to the plaza is by way of a formal
typology such as outlined by Paul Zucker (1959) in his
Town and Square: From the Agora to the Village
Green. Zucker'stypology was based on five archetypes:
(1) the closed square, in which the space (rectangle,
circle, or quadrangle)is surroundedby repetitive built
forms; (2) the domtnated square, in which the spatial
axis leads to a dominant, focal construction; (3) the
nuclear square, in which the nucleus of an open space
is created by a central monument or fountain; (4)
grouped squares, multiple spaces that are either con-
tiguous, physically linked by thoroughfares,or visually
articulated by a shared dominant structure; and (5)
amorphous squares, a refreshingly ambiguous term.
Zuckerindirectlyidentified some of the differingexpe-
riences one has in open spaces of diverse forms, but
JERRY D. MOORE of Anthropology,
is AssociateProfessor,Department
DominguezHills,Carson,CA90747.
StateUniversity,
California
AmencanAnthropologist98(4):789-802.Copyright(D 1996, AmericanAnthropological
and
after masteringthe archetypes' definitions, one inevita-
bly asks, aSo what?"Formal typologies may miss the
most the essential quality of plazas:they are places for
human interaction.
The alternative model described below rests on
three points. Ritualconcepts are expressed and created
via paralinguistic, verbal, and nonverbal modes of hu-
man communication. Because of the innate properties
of human perception, spatial thresholds structure the
ability to communicate over distance. And conse-
quently, the architectural settings of rite reflect the
modes of ritual communication that occurred in those
spaces.
Archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric
data provide the basis for an outline of three types of
Andeanplazas. These are the central plazas associated
with the pan-AndeanInka Empire(A.D. 1430-1530);the
enclosed plazas associated with the pre-Incaic Chimu
state (A.D. 900-1470) of the NorthCoast of Peru;and the
sunken plazas associated with the Chiripa (600-100
B.C.), Pucara (200 B.C.-A.D. 300), and Tiwanaku (A.D.
300-1200) cultures of the Lake Titicaca basin and the
southern Andes (see Figure 1). After analyzingthe spa-
tial differences of these plaza traditions, I discuss the
different modes of ritual that occurred in each. The
conclusion suggests ways archaeologists might apply
similar approaches to other forms of prehistoric archi-
tecture.
Plazas as Spaces for Interaction
Plazas are culturally deElnedspatial settings for
diverse public interactions that may be sacred or mun-
dane processions, commercial exchanges, execu-
tions, consecrations, games, Elestas,or chats on park
Association.
790 * VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1996
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
a}LUKURMATP
Figure 1
Locations of sites discussed in text.
benches. But although distinct activities may occur in
the public square, not all open spaces have the same
design or culturalintent. The size, location, and access
patterns of open spaces may reproduce and produce
different modes of human interaction, a process Miles
Richardsonhas called the "objectificationof social ex-
perience" (1980:217-218). In this process the meaning
of interaction is provisionallystated by the constructed
space in which it occurs. Similarly, Hilda Kuper has
described the key place that forms "a particularpiece
of social space, a place socially and ideologically de-
marcated and separated from other places." Such a
space, Kuperargued, Uconveysand evokes a range of
responses. The importance of these sites is not only
their manifest and distinctive appearance, but their
qualifyingand latent meaningX(1972:420421).
A large and growing body of theory considers the
relationships between human behavior and the con-
structed environment.2But for the archaeologist, the
problem is straightforward:How can one make reason-
ably sound inferences about past interactions from an-
cient architecturein general or from prehistoric plazas
in particular?Discussing pre-Hispanicpublic architec-
ture in the valley of Oaxaca, RichardBlanton has out-
lined a model in which specific attributes of public
architecture pertain to the communicativefunction of
the building,or how it transmits a message . . . a kind of
watered-downsemiology in which the concern is not so
much with meaning itself as with how meaning is con-
veyed" (1989:413). Blanton provides a cautious entree
to the meaning of the prehistoric built environment(cf.
Preziosi 1979:73-91)by shifting perspective from what
something means to how something means, which par-
allels Kuper'snotion of aqualifyingand latent meaning."
By looking at public spaces as places where human
interactions occur, one can suggest the modes of inter-
action possible in a given space in contrast to other
modes of interactions that simply could not occur in a
specific architecturalsetting. In turn this allows for an
archaeologicalapproachto ritualand interactionbased
on properties of humanperception.
Ritual, Communication, and Perception
Ritual,as Stanley Tambiahwrites,
is a culturallyconstructed system of symbolic communica-
tion. It is constituted of patterned and ordered sequences
of words and acts, often expressed in multiple media,
whose content and arrangementare characterizedby vary-
ing degrees of formality (conventionality), stereotypy (ri-
gidity), condensation (fusion), and redundancy (repeti-
tion). [1985:128]
Independent of the kaleidoscope of ritual actions
or the layers of associated meanings, rituals are de-
signed to communicate,a point madeby EdmundLeach
(1968), who emphasizes that ritual is the communica-
tion of highly redundant,stylized, and condensed infor-
mation. Victor Turner writes that ritual is that Ugreat
multifacetedsystem"incorporatingmultipleand simul-
taneous media and meanings (1985:295).But while mul-
tiple media may be incorporatedinto rites, humancom-
municationcan be divided into three fundamentalsets:
paralinguistic,verbal, and nonverbal.3To oversimplify
complex interrelationships,paralinguisticcommunica-
tion refers to the nonverbal vocalizations, pauses, and
tonal properties that provide an underlyingcontext for
speech. Verbal communication, obviously7 involves
speech and signs. Nonverbal communicationrefers to
symboling with gesture, expression, body posture, and
the use of space (Bonvillain 1993:37).Each communi-
cative set has distinctive properties and different but
overlapping spatial thresholds. Paralinguisticcommu-
nication such as voice qualities may serve as meta-
communicativeindication of the seriousness, accuracy,
or falsehood of a verbal statement. Gestures may be
idiosyncratic;emblemic, conveying a specific culturally
defined meaning; or iconic, presenting athe listener
with a visible symbolic version of a talked about action
 ANDEANPLAZASANDRITUAL/ JERRYD. MOORE 791

. . . performed in lieu of a verbal description of an act"
(Streeck and Knapp1992:14).
These different modes of communicationhave dis-
tinct spatial ranges, a point made nearly 40 years ago by
Edward T. Hall in his discussions of proxemics (1959,
1968, 1972). Proxemics is often treated as a subset of
nonverbal communication (Bonvillain 1993),but Hall's
analysis also considered how spatial relations shaped
other forms of human communication. Thus, Hall
(1966) deElned intimate distance, personal distance,
and social distance based on thresholds of communica-
tion, which, in turn, were structured by the perceptual
limits of human senses (Gibson 1960). One of Hall's
basic insights was that increasing distance between
speakers is associated with different modes of commu-
nication, each with distinct potentials. Although the
precise dimensions of personal versus public space are
culturally deEmed(Hall 1968; Segall et al. 1966), the
outer limits of perception are human thresholds recog-
nized by such diverse professionals as theater archi-
tects (Cheney 1918)fgraphicartists (Follis and Hammer
1979:18-23),designers of interior directories and maps
(Ramsey and Sleeper 1988), and acoustical engineers
(Knudsenand Harris 1978).
Hall describes a series of thresholds for interper-
sonal interaction,and althoughthese are not rigid,they
reflect general limits to modes of interpersonalcommu-
nication (see Table 1). For example, the aclose phase"
of public distance is defined as 3.5 to 8 meters, plus or
minus 1.5 meters, while the far phaseXof public dis-
tance occurs between 10 meters and the maximum
carryingdistance of a voice (Hall 1972:147*). As distance
increases,
body stance and gesture are featured; facial expression
becomes exaggerated as does the loudness of the voice.
The tempo of the voice drops;words are enunciated more
clearly.... The whole man may be perceived as quite small
and he is viewed in a setting. Foeval vision takes in more
and more of the man until he is entirely within the small
cone of sharpest vision. At this point, contact with him as
a humanbeing begins to diminish. [Hall 1972:148]
As the distance between participants increases,
differingmodes of communication- paralinguistic,ver-
bal, or nonverbal-will vary in importance;space and
perception filter the modes of communication.In addi-
tion, there will be shifts in the content of the message.
Paralinguisticcommunicationmay create complex cur-
rents of meaning but only over relatively short dis-
tances. Gestures may marksubtle sets of meanings,but
are perceptible over relatively short spaces. The inten-
sity of sound decreases inversely with the square of
distance, and even more rapidly in outdoor environ-
ments where air turbulence and temperaturegradients
disperse sound waves and reduce intensity (Ross
1974:87).Thus, a quiet conversation at 30 decibels at a
distance of two meters becomes inaudibleat a distance
of 32 meters. As distance increases there is a progres-
sive emphasis on the communication of conventional
and stereotypical meanings,which rely partlyon knowl-
edge of the kinesic vocabulary (Golder 1992; Schmitt
1992).
The connections between ritual, communication,
and perception partiallybridgethe gap between prehis-
toric event and the archaeological record. Because dif-
ferent forms of human communication have distinct
spatial ranges, rituals in plazas of different sizes neces-
sarily incorporated varying modes of communication.
Without discounting other factors, the scale of plazas

Table 1
Distanceand perception.Based on datain Hall1966.

Distance in Meters
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Informal
distance lntlmate/ roclal MUbllC >
classes Personal
OraSl soft voice; casual or loud voice when full public speaking voice;
Aural whisper consultative voice taLkingto group frozen style
Detail details of fine lines of face eye color not discernible; difficult to see eyes, subtle
smile vs. scowl visible
. .

vlslon skin, teeth, fade; wink visible expressions

face visible
Scanning whole face upper body; can't upper body and whole body has space
vision visible count fingers gestures around it in visual field
Peripheral head and whole body whole body other people become
Vision shoulder movement visible important in vision
792 * VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1 996
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
set maximal limits on the forms of ritual communica-
tion possible in such places. Thus, the archaeological
record indirectly reflects the use of constructed space
in public ceremony, and it is possible to suggest what
forms of ritual may have occurred in prehistoricplazas.
Andean Plazas as Ritual Spaces
Throughout Andean prehistory, plazas have pro-
vided arenas for public ceremony and ritual, though
they have appeared in varyingspatial forms with mark-
edly different properties (Moore 1996). Ethnohistoric
and ethnographicaccounts suggest some relevant vari-
ables for understandingthe ritual activities in Andean
plazas. For example, in 1560 the Augustinians,writing
from the north-centralAndes region of Huamachuco,
described a sacrificial rite in honor of Ataguu, the
principal deity of Huamachuco,and his deified mother
and brother:
To adore and honor this false Trinitythey have great plazas
lcorralesl and these have a very tall wall and inside the
plaza they place posts to make their fiestas and in the
middle they set a post and wrap it with straw and anoint it
and the man who is going to [make a] sacrifice climbs up
the post dressed in white garments and they kill a guinea
pig and offer the blood to AtaguJuand he eats the meat;and
others kill alpacas and llamas and pour the blood on the
post and they eat the meat and none of the meat is saved
or taken away after all that work. There are manyniches in
the walls for storing the relics which the alpaca or llama
has and the land is filled with these corrales and we have
destroyed many, and in the tambos and roads there are
many niches and, to this day, many who see them in Pera
do not know what they are. All of these are destroyed in
Guamachuco.[Augustinians1865(1560):14-15;my transla-
tion]
The cultural importance of the Huamachuco pla-
zas and the reason for the Augustinians'concern with
them was their signiElcancein native ceremony and
ritual.Plazas in the Andes were the arenas of key rituals
combiningspeech, music, dance, and displayin ceremo-
nies that fused communities, validated social distinc-
tions, and restated cosmogonies. MariaRostworowski
de Diez Canseco writes that such public Elestas
in the Andean universe had deep roots in the past. The
physical expressions were not only ritual manifestations,
the ceremonies of powerful elites or propitiatory repre-
sentations, but were communal expressions in which all
the inhabitants of a pueblo participated without distinc-
tions of sex or age. This created a sense of integrationand
cohesion between ayllu groups. [1984:58-59;my transla-
tion]
Not surprisingly,the Augustinianswere much less tol-
erant:
And in these plazas they make great fiestas of their sacri-
fices that last Elvedays and they make great dances and
songs, dressed in their best clothes, and there is great
drunkenness, and all this time they never stop drinking,
some falling down as others are getting up, and this is how
they celebrate their disgraceful fiestas. [Augustinians
1865(1560):15;my translation]
As insightful as these ethnohistoric accounts are,
they do not capture the full range of rites that occurred
in Andean plazas. Ratherthan assume that all Andean
plazas were the scenes of communal expressions of
integrationand cohesion between social units, I suggest
that different plaza patterns reflect different modes of
interactions in Inka, Chimu, and Lake Titicaca-basin
societies.
Inka Plazas
Plazas were key elements in Inka settlement de-
sign, althoughnot present in all communities in Tawan-
tinsuyu,the Empireof the FourQuarters.BernabeCobo
distinguished between large settlements, such as the
capital Cuzeo, which uwere built like towns," and
smaller settlements, where 'houses were jumbled to-
gether with no order or coherent relation" and thus
Zwerenot arrangedto form streets or central squares"
(1990[1653]:190).In all principalInkasettlements, how-
ever, plazas were key elements associated with the
ushnu, a shrine that was variously a constructed plat-
form or sculpted stone on which sacrifices were made
or on which Inkarulers sat duringpublic ceremonies or
militaryreviews, and which was also a reference point
in astronomical observations (Hyslop 1990). From
Ecuador to Chile, plaza and ushnu were central and
recurring elements of Inka settlements throughout
Tawantinsuyu, present in sites such as Chincheros
Plaza de Capellanpampa, Tambo Colorado, Willka
Waman,Pumpu, Chucuito (the seat of Lupaqapower,
which probablywas remodeled by the Inka),and Cuzeo
(see Figure 2).4
In Cuzeothe now-dividedPlaza de Armasand Plaza
del Regoci,io originally were the contiguous spaces
named the Haucaypata and Cusipata (OrmindoD. de
Azevedo 1982:49). Flanked by royal palaces, these
spaces covered over 50,000 m2and were the locales for
important ceremonies (Rowe 1946; Zuidema 1990). In
the Haucaypata the mummies of former rulers were
broughtout and toasted with maize beer. It was where
the Inti Raymifestival was celebrated a ceremony in
which the image of Ticisviracocha was placed in the
Haucaypataand worshiped in turn by the Inka,nobility,
and commoners (MacCormack 1991:103, 111). In the
Haucaypatathe representative images of the oracular
shrines (huacas) fromthroughoutthe Inkaempirewere
assembled and received by the Inka and his nobles.
 .. Xt v iLwi-e ibSw ............ f

ANDEANPLAZASAND RITUAL / JERRY D. MOORE 793

SACSAHUAMAN
-<

Road
toChinchaysuyo
AWo\\t

o 500 1 OOOm

Figure 2 o; o.*---s * t .:-, * ''A' 250 500m |

\*jow; - -a;\ w _
Planof InkaCuzco. (Redrawnwith modificationsafterGaspariniand
Margolies 1980.) *, * - ..... ^. .
s s.

They were questioned and then either rewarded for Figure 3

previous accurate predictions or punished for their er-
rors (MacCormack1991:103-104).
The Haucaypata was unique, but similar plazas
were found elsewhere in Tawantinsuyu.For example,
Ollantaytambopreserves two public areas where com-
munstyceremonies may have occurred (Gaspariniand
Margolies1980:69;Protzen 1993),a 3,402 m2plaza in the
middle of the residential zone and the Plaza of Ma-
niaraki, which covers 3,564 m2.Although Luis Miguel
Glave and MariaIsabel Remy rathercategorically state
that Uthepublic plaza was none other than the modern
Plaza of Maniaraki"(1983:2;my translation),other pub-
lic ceremonies, such as rituals associated with a spe-
CifilC ayllu, may have occurred in the smaller plaza.
In contrast, there is no possible ambiguity at
Huanuco Pampa (see Figure 3); the central plaza is
enormous,547 meters by 370 meters, and pivotal to the
urban center, with all the principalroads leading from
the corners of the square (Morrisand Thompson 1985;
Morrisand Von Hagen 1993).Based on excavated mate-
rials, many of the activities at HuanucoPampainvolved
ntual feastingand public ceremony.CraigMorriswrites:
Plan of HuanucoPampa. (Redrawnwith modificationsafter Morris
and Thompson 1985.)
ships? this may even have been the key function, and many
of the other spaces and activities in the center served to
support it. An elaborate setting had been constructed for
the ceremonies that forged a relationship between the Inka
asId those whose service was importaIlt to them. [1982:166]
Inkaplazaswere not used solely as ritualspaces, but
they do reflect a basic design consideration:public Inka
ceremonies were celebrated outdoors, the interiors of
shrines and temples being reserved for royalty,pnests,
and objects of worship (MacCormack 1991:113-114;
Rowe 1946:298).Inkaplazas exhibit three basic features:
they are large,central,and open. Inkaplazas cover thou-
sands of square meters, they are often located in the
central sector of the site's residentialarchitecture,and
althoughsurroundedby structuresthe Inkaplazas have
relatively open entnes. In each point they differ from
plazasfound on the NorthCoast of Peru.
ChimuPlazas

The elaboratespace providedalongwith thousandsof jars of The ethnohistoric record from the North Coast is
beer representsone of the pnncipalinvestmentsmade by the not extensive, but Pedro Cieza de Leon described the
Inkastate at HuanucoPampa.In tenns of state-localrelation- social use of plazas there:
 -
794 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
* VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1996
The native lords of these plains were greatly feared in the
past and obeyed by their subjects and were senred with
great pomp which is their custom presenting him with
jesters and dancers, and the lords continuously feasted
while others played and sang.... Each lord in his valley had
his own great palace with many adobe pillars and great
terraces and porticos roofed with reed mats. In the center
of this house there was a large plaza where they had their
dances and communal songs, and when the lord ate he
gathered together large numbers of people who drankhis
brew, made from maize and other roots. In these palaces
were porters in charge of guardingthe doors and of seeing
who entered and left.... Althoughthere were three or four
[different] lineages among these coastal people, they all
had certain rites and customs. 11985(1555):ch. 61; my
translation]
This description perfectly fits the arrangementof
large open space in Chimuarchitecture (see Figure 4).
50
-\ 100 m
Figure 4
CiudadelaTschudi, Chan Chan. (Redrawnwith modifications after
Moseley and Mackey1974.)
The royal compounds (ciadadelas) of the Chimucapi-
tal, ChanChan,exemplify this spatial arrangement,and
even provincial sites like Manchanand Farfan exhibit
this basic pattern.5Manchan, located in the southern
frontierof the Chimustate, actually exhibited the bases
of columns identical to Cieza's description (Moore
1981).
Chimuplazas differ markedlyfrom Inka plazas in
location, access, and form. They are enclosed spaces,
directly incorporated into a speciElc lord's residence
(Moseley and Mackey1974).At ChanChan,the maJority
of the compounds and particularlythe ones thought
to date latter in time, such as Velarde, Tschudi,
Rivero-contain large plazas located in the northern
third of the compound.6Unlike what we find in Inka
settlements, there are no large, central plazas in Chimu
settlements (Conklin 1990). Rather, large unroofed
spaces are located behind large adobe walls, entered
through baffled entryways that are easily controlled.
Enclosed activities were invisible from the outside, and
the distinction between insiders and outsiders was
markedby adobe walls. The construction of royal com-
pounds is so restrictivethat most archaeologists see the
walls as a mediumof social control markingsignificant
class distinctions (Moore 1992), an objectification of a
social divide which North Coast cosmogonic myths
state were created at the birthof time. Onlya few scraps
of North Coast myth survived the Inka and Spanish
conquests, but those fragments emphasize the differ-
ences between social classes. One creation myth re-
corded by Antonio Calanchastates:
It was said in the treatise of Pachacamacthat these Indians
of the flatlands and seacoasts were certain (and many
believe it today) that their initial masses and founding
fathers were not Adam and Eve, but four stars, that two
gave birth to the Kings, Lords, and nobles, and the other
two to the commoners, the poor, and the indentured,
which- as the Faith we profess makes precise are [actu-
ally the result ofl the chances of this earth and not because
it is thought that the rich and powerful are descendants of
other beginnings than are the humble and poor, but they
see the poor not as naturallyequal but as the least valued
of Fortune. [1977(1638):1244]
This emphasis on innate social differences is re-
flected in Chimuarchitecture.Access is highly restric-
tive in ChanChan'sciudadelas;a single door leads into
a walled enclosure, the largest of which (GranChimu)
covers 30.2 hectares. Activities inside the ciudadela
were invisible to outsiders, and the plazas were placed
such that encounters were tightly controlled. The focal
point of the plaza is not an ushnu or central shrine but
a ramp and bench located directly opposite the princi-
pal entrance. The bench and rampwere designed to be
viewed and approachedfrom a single direction, a point
inferred not only from the ruins themselves but also
 ANDEANPLAZASAND RITUAL-/ JERRY D. MOORE 795

athe standard architecturalframeworkfor ceremonlal

display and public religious expression" (Kolata
1993:104).7At Tiwanaku,sunken plazas are associated
with the most prominentceremonial complexes at the
site, Akapanaand PumaPunku,and are also present at
other maJorcomplexes such as Putini, Kalassaya,and
the semisubterranean temple (Kolata 1993:104).This
pairing of sunken plaza and terraced platform is an
architecturalunit that bdominatesthe cinc-ceremonial
core of Tiwanakuand that of its satellite cities" (Kolata
1993:103) and is found at Lukurmataand other Ti-
wanaku communities in the Titicaca basin.8
Figure 5
. An interesting provincial example of Tiwanaku-
Wooden model of ChimuCiudadela.Photo courtesy of Christopher style architecture was discovered by Paul Goldstein
Donnan. (1993) at Omo,locatedin the MoqueguaValley,approxi-
mately 250 kilometers southwest of Tiwanaku.A multi-
component site occupied in A.D. 375-1100 (Moseley et
froma wooden architecturalmodel now in Berlin (Don-
al. 1991:123-124),Omois clearly linked to Tiwanakuby
nan 1975).This piece (see Figure 5) is approximately60
shared ceramic and architecturalstyles. Omo'ssunken
centimeters long and represents the columned bench
court is part of a temple complex constructed circa A.D.
and rampof a Chimuciudadela.The model'sdecoration
789-954 and consisting of lower, middle, and upper
pattem indicates how it is to be newed: it is inlaid with
small shell step-frets on the surfaces to be viewed from courts rising steplike six meters over a distance of 120
meters (Goldstein 1993:34-35). The upper court con-
the front, as if one were standing out in the plaza. A
similarmodel with 28 wooden Elgures,commemorating tained a sunken rectangularplaza lined with stone ash-
lars and painted red. The sunken rectangular court
the death of a Chimuruler, has been discovered dunng
recent excavations at the Huaca de la Luna (lJceda measures 10.5 meters by 10.5 meters and is flanked by
two sets of four rooms and fronted by a larger adobe-
Castillon.d.). The Huacade la Lunaarchitecturalmodel
walled structure. Goldstein (1993:37) interprets the
exempliElesthe highly restricted natureof Chimuinter-
actions.
Like Inka plazas, Chimu plazas were places for
interactions,but interactions of a differenttype. Access
was restticted, participantswere limited, and the inter-
bN =n
actions were visually anchored. IJnlike the Inka, the
open spaces in Chimuciudadelas were not theaters in
the round but spaces where ruler and ruled came to-
gether in arenas where social distances were rearticu-
lated and maintained.

Chiripa, Pucara, and TiwanakuPlazas

A third and equally distinctive form of Andean
plaza has a long tradition in the southern Andes. These
square or rectangularsunken spaces are found in sites
dating from the Late Chiripa (ca. 600-100 B.C.) and
Pucara (ca. 200 B.C.-A^D.300) periods but appeat most
prominentlyduling the development and expansion of
Tiwanaku (A.D. 300-1200). The earliest example at
Chiripa(see Figure 6) is located in the center of a set of
structuresvariously interpretedas residences (Conklin
1991) and temple storerooms (Mohr Chavez 1988). At
Pucara,the sunken plaza excavated by AlfredKidderin o I2Um
1939is one of six such plazas located at differentpoints
around the site (Kidder 1943). The central precinct of
Tiwanakuis dominated by sunken courts surrounded Figure 6
by terracedplatforms,an architecturalfeaturethat was Plan of Chiripa.(Redrawnwith modificationsafter Conklin1991).
796 * VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1 996
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
deep pit in the center of the sunken court as supporting
the base of an idol since looted from the site.
The sunken rectangular plazas from the region
around Lake Titicaca are small, enclosed, and promi-
nently placed. The Pucara, Chiripa, and Tiwanaku
sunken plazas differ markedly from either Inka or
Chimu plazas, and a proxemic analysis suggests the
different meanings created in these diverse spaces.
Analysis and Discussion
Basic data on plaza sizes (Table 2) are plotted in
Figure 7. The plazas in the sample represent the princi-
pal plazas associated with each site. Figure 7 indicates
that Inka, ChimuXand Pucara/Chiripa/Tiwanaku plazas
fall into distinct, though overlapping, size modes. The
plazas of the Titicaca region are relatively small (mean
area = 1,086.3 m2; standard deviation = 927.1), with
plaza areas rangingfrom 90 to 2,091 m2.Chimuplazas
are largerthan Chiripa,Pucara,or Tiwanakuplazas and
tend to cluster more tightly around the mean (mean
area = 5,147.00 m2;standard deviation = 2,482.5). The
variation in Chimu plaza sizes (minimum = 2,014 m2;
maximum = 11,200m2)is influenced by the large plaza
at Manchan;the other Chimuplazas vary only between
2,014 and 6,724 m2.Inkaplazas are the largest and most
variable (mean = 54,313 m2; standard deviation =
80,977.5), with plazas rangingfrom the relatively small
plaza at Tombebamba (6,318 m2) to enormous con-
200 -
150 -
Wl DTH
(m) -
1oo
*s
so -
.
o 50
* Chiripa, Pukara,
Plot of Chiripa,Pucara,Tiwanaku,Chimu,and Inkaplazas.
structed spaces at sites like Pumpu (190,200 m2) and
Huanuco Pampa (202,390 m2). But behind the simple
numeric differences, these three traditions of Andean
plazas reflect distinct sets of ritual interactions relying
upon different thresholds of humanperception.
TurningElrstto the cases from the Titicaca area,
one finds a consistent emphasis on relatively small
spaces suitable for communication at close range. It
may be, as Alan Kolata and Carlos Ponce Sanguines
(1992) have argued, that the ceremonial precinct of
Tiwanaku was an axis mundi, but the central ritual
activities in the sunken plazas occurred in a relatively
small space. Kolata (1993) has proposed a subtle inter-
pretation of the symbolism of Tiwanaku'splan, but an
obvious pattern is that the sunken plazas are relatively
private interior spaces, though located in central posi-
tions in constructed, urbanspace. Withinthese spaces,
Tiwanaku rite involved communication of detailed in-
formation over small distances. For example, the ico-
nographyof the Bennett stela, once located in the cen-
ter of the semisubterranean plaza, is a '4highly
compressed image of esoteric knowledge" (Kolata
1993:141), containing visual information undecipher-
able at a distance. Similarly,evidence for rituals from
the structures and terraces surroundingthe Akapana
sunken plaza (Kolata 1993:117-127) reflect intimate
gestures: the placement of small metal objects (sheets,
knives, Elgurines),the use of miniatures(keros, llamas),
the intentional destruction of polychrome vessels, and
.
ss .
.
100 200
LENGTH 150
(m)
Tiwanaku A Chimu * Inka
 ANDEANPLAZASANDRITUAL/ JERRYD. MOORE 797

the secondary burials of adults and children (Man- Table 2

zanilla 1992; Manzanillaand Woodward 1990). Dispa- Plaza dimensions and areas, in meters, for selected Inka, Chimu,
rate classes of offerings were spatially segregated (Ko- Chiripa,Pucara,and Tiwanakusites.a
lata 1993:119), suggesting that placement was a key
component of Tiwanaku ritual, yet imperceptible ex- Dimensions (m) Area (m=)
cept to those nearby.In the Titicacaplazasit is probable Haucaypata 190 x 165 30,450
that ritual interactions occurred over relatively small Cusipata 170-180 x 100-130 20,125
distances in which one could hear a sentence spoken in Huanuco Pampa 547x370 202,390
a normal voice, see a facial expression, or inspect the Chincheros 114x60 6,800
placement of miniatures.Such an emphasis on interac- Tambo Colorado 130 x 50-82 8,580
tions at close range may have a long tradition in the WilLkaWaman 195 x 72-120 18,730
Pumpu 380 x 490 (approx.) 190,200
southern Andes, perhaps extending to the Archaic Pe-
Tombebamba 95 x 58-75 6,318
riod (Aldenderfer 1991:227-228; Ponce Sanguines 72x72
Ollantaytambo 5,184
1969b). Although similar modes of ritual communica- Squier 71 x 58 4,118
tion are described for modern Aymarahousehold ritu- Tshudi 76x71 5,396
als, it is importantto realize that such communication Rivero 83x73 6,278
was apparently the basis of pubaw ritual in the sites Laberinto 82x82 6,724
around Lake Titicaca.9 Gran Chimu 77x73 5,622
It seems probable that the Titicaca plazas were Velarde 58x56 3,248
scenes of ritual activities performedby small numbers Bandelier 84 x 76 6,384
of participants. William Conklin suggests that Ti- Uhle 86x74 6,364
wanaku architecture reflects rituals involving thresh- Tello North 58 x 55 3,190
Tello South 53 x 38 2,014
olds and ritual movement (1991:286),a point that Gold-
Manchan 140x80 11,200
stein has elaborated into a view of public architecture 69x60
Farfan 3,600
as a vessel for ritual procession" (1993:42). Perhaps Chiripa 22x23.5 517
sites like Tiwanaku and Omo were pilgrimage sites, Pucara 16 x 15 240
drawing on a sacred network that extended over the Akapana 45 x 45 2,025
southern Andes, but it is probablyincorrect to imagine Putuni 51 x 41 2,091
individualpilgrimsproceeding into an increasingly re- Semisubterranean
stricted sacred space" (Goldstein 1993:42).Rather,the Temple 26.0-26.1 x 28.5-28.6 746
proxemics of ritual spaces support Kolata'sinterpreta- Lukunnata 9.49-9.51 x 9.5>9.44 90
tion of Tiwanaku elites as uinterlocutorswith the di- Omo 10.5 x 10.5 110

vine" (1993:164). If there were a point of contact be-
tween masses of pilgrims and the hidden sacred zones,
it was almost certainly an elite intermediarywho made
the offerings and entered the sacred space on behalf of
the pilgrims.
Inka ceremony, in contrast, involved largergroups
of people in shared rite. This is not to imply that access
to Inka ritual was unrestricted or that Inkaritual never
involved less public activities in smaller,privatespaces.
Yet there was an important role for massive public
gatherings that, in turn, were related to the well-estab-
lished Inkanotion of cotTelatingspatial and social cen-
ters as representations of transformed wholeness, a
concept conveyed by the Quechua morpheme nttn.
Tristam Platt, citing an unpublished grammar of
CuzquenoQuechua by Donald Sola and Antonio Cusi-
huaman, deEmesntin as "inclusivein nature, with im-
plications of totality, spatial inclusion of one thing in
another, or identification of two elements as members
of the same category"(1986:245).A similar interpreta-
tion of ntin is described by Gary Parker (1976:94-95)
for Ancash-Huailas Quechua. Thus Joseph Bastien
glosses Tawantinsuyo [sic] as athe four (tawa) places
aData collated from Mohr Chavez 1988 (Chiripa,Pucara,
semisubterraneantemple at Tiwanaku);Rivera Sundt 1989
(Lukunnata);Goldstein1993(Omo);ManzanillaandWoodward
1990 (Akapana at Tiwanaku);Arellano 1991 (Putini at Ti-
wanaku); Gaspariniand Margolies1980 (Chincheros,Cuzco/
Haucaypata,Cusipata,Ollantaytambo/hIanianki,
Tambo Colo-
rado, Willka Waman);Hyslop 1990 (Pumpu, Tombebamba);
Moseley and Mackey 1974 (Chan Chan Ciudadelas);Mackey
1987(Manchan,Farfan).
(sayo) in so much as they were distinct yet united
(nttn)" (1978:45).Ceremonies emphasizinguniElcation
of distinct elements frequently occurred in centrally
located plazas, a process RogerRasnakeobserves in his
ethnography of the modern Quechua community of
Yura, Bolivia, where the central plaza ... is trans-
formed into a kind of microcosm of the canton; each of
the four corners of the squarebecomes an 'altar'of one
of the four maEor ayllus"(1988:248).Rasnakecontinues:
A common theme of the kuraqkunafestivals is the rituali-
zation of concepts of space and geography.All the festivals
sponsored by the kuraqkunanot only emphasize the struc-
ture of ayllus but also link the multiple groupings of the
798 * VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1 996
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
social order to a conception of their physical territory.This
sacralization and socializationX of space is an aspect of
ritual language quite widespread in the Andes.
[1988:242-243]
It is a widespread Andean aspect, but not a univer-
sal one; nothing could be more different from Chimu
plazas. If Inka public ceremonies at Cuzeo and provin-
cial centers brought together different segments of so-
ciety, Chimu plazas in the ciudadelas were designed
partly to resttict contacts between different segments
of society, rigidly shaping their interactions. We lack
depictions of interactions between lords and subjects
in Chimu ceramics- images that are so abundant in
Moche pottery (Benson 1992;Donnan 1978). Although
there is debate about the organization of the Chimu
state, there is no question that an enormous social
divide separated ruler and ruled.l?Chimupublic archi-
tecture reflects an ideology of separation,and rituals in
the Chimu ciudadela plazas were more public than
those at Tiwanakusites and less so than those in Inka
plazas.
Summaryand Conclusion
The above discussion has approached plazas as
places of encounters and emphasized their role in An-
dean rituals. This emphasis on interaction led to a con-
sideration of the spatial relationships between ritual
communication and human perception. In turn, this
allowed for preliminaryinferences about the ritual in-
teractions that occulTed in three plaza traditions asso-
ciated with Inka, Chimu, and Pucara, Chiripa,and Ti-
wanaku societies. More generally, archaeological
analyses that incorporate proxemics can provide new
insights into the prehistoric built environment. Such
approaches consider constructed spaces as architec-
tural arenas that shape and are shaped by social inter-
actions partlystructuredby modes of humancommuni-
cation. This article analyzed only plazas, but similar
approaches could be applied to domestic architecture,
public monuments, cemeteries, and other funerary
complexes literally any form of prehistoric architec-
ture. And while future analyses will amend and clarify
the initial inferences discussed above, the present study
illustrates the value of an interactional approach to
pre-Hispanicarchitectureas a public space peopled by
humanbeings and their passions" (Paz 1993).
Although major differences distinguish the con-
structed environments and public rituals of Pucara,
Chiripa,Tiwanaku,Chimu,and Inka societies, they all
share a common element: rituals occurred in specially
prepared public spaces, suggesting the importance of
these rituals in the creation and maintenance of legiti-
macy and power.l' Lawrencewrites:
Public celebrations in complex society are often created
self-consciously, or even invented" ... with tacit inten-
tions for validating authority,unifying a group (in opposi-
tion to authority), or promoting some enterprise.... Be-
cause they are self-consciously conceived, they find their
spatial expression in a carefully contrived and regulated
stage ratherthan in more spontaneous settings. [1992:215]
Thus a study of Andean plazas not only clarifies the
nature of public rite but partly illuminates the pre-His-
panic bases of legitimacy and power. Plazas are a form
of public architecture and are partially shaped by dis-
tinctive acts of ritualand ceremony. Thereis a tendency
to consider pre-InkaAndean societies as shadowy pre-
cursors of Tawantinsuyu,highlightingculturalcontinui-
ties and extending ethnohistoric patterns to millennia
of prehistory (Moseley 1992). Althoughsome elements
are of great antiquity ancestor worship (Doyle 1988),
signiElcanceof maize and coca, and sociopolitical insti-
tutions based on reciprocity archaeologicaldata dem-
onstrate that ancient Andean societies differed
markedly in public architecture and, presumably, the
constructed meanings and social metaphorsunderlying
public efforts (Isbell 1978;Moore 1996).Simplyput, the
enormous plazas of the Inka, the enclosed courtyards
of the Chimu,and the small sunken plazas of Tiwanaku
reflect different conceptions of publicness and rite. An
archaeological approach that explores such variations
in Andean architecture is a Elrststep toward under-
standing the diverse conceptions of power and space
devised and employed in the pre-HispanicAndes.
Notes
Acknowledgments.This research was supportedby a visit-
ing researchfellowship at the SainsburyResearchUnit for the
Arts of Africa,Oceania, and the Americas,Universityof East
Anglia, United Kingdom.I would like to express my deep
appreciationto Steven Hooper (director, SRU),CesarePoppi,
and Joanne Pillsburyfor their interest, support, and helpful
comments.I would also like to thank PatriciaHewitt andAsia
Gaskell,SainsburyResearchUnit library,for their great help,
and Francine Huntfor her many assistances at East Anglia.I
also thank ChristopherDonnan for permission to reproduce
the photographin Figure5. This paper has been improvedby
the comments of Robert Franklin, Janine Gasco, Christine
Hastorf,WilliamIsbell, Joanne Pillsbury,and two anonymous
reviewers for the Amertcan Anthropologist. I deeply appre-
ciate the help and encouragementprovidedby all these care-
ful readers.Any errorsof interpretationor fact are, of course,
my own.
1. Adler 1989:36; Low 1992; Rapoport 1990:258-259;
Richardson1982;and Zucker 1959.
2. For example, see Duncan 1981, 1990; Eco 1980; Hall
1959, 1966, 1972; Hillier and Hanson 1984; Kent 1990;
Lawrence and Low 1990;Low and Chambers1989;Maxwell
1983;Preziosi 1979;Rapoport 1969, 1990;Relph 1976;Smith
and David 1995;Tuan 1974, 1977;and Zevi 1959.

3. Birdwhistell 1970;Eibl-Eibesfeldt1970;Hall 1959, 1966,
1968;Salzmann1993;and Traeger 1958.
4. On Tawantinsuyu,see Hyslop 1990. On Chinchero,see
Alcina Franch 1976.On TamboColorado,WillkaWaman,and
Pumpu, see Gaspariniand Margolies 1980:111,113, 125. On
Chucuito, see Gaspariniand Margolies 1980:77and Hyslop
1990:195-197.
5. On Chan Chan, see Moseley 1975, 1982; Moseley and
Cordy-Collins1990;and Moseley and Day 1982.On Manchan,
see Mackey 1987 and Mackeyand Klymyshyn1981, 1990.On
Farfan,see Keatingeand Conrad1983.
6. Day 1982;Kolata 1990;and Topic and Moseley 1983.
7. Kolata 1993; Manzanilla 1992; and Ponce Sanguines
1969a, 1972.
8. On Lukurrnata,see Rivera Sundt 1989. On other Ti-
wanakucommunities, see Kolataand Ponce Sanguines 1992.
9. Bastien 1978;Buechler 1980;and Tschopik 1946, 1951.
10. Moore 1985, 1995;Moseley 1975, 1990;Netherly 1978,
1990;and Rowe 1948.
11. Cannadine1987;Geertz 1980;and Grimes 1976.
References Cited
Adler,Michael
1989 RitualFacilities and Social Integrationin Nonranked
Societies. In The Architecture of Social Integration in
Prehistoric Pueblos. Occasional Paper 1. WilliamLipe
and Michelle Hegmon, eds. Pp. 35-52. Cortez, CO:Crow
CanyonArchaeological Center.
Alcina Franch,Jose
1976 La arqueologia de Chinchero, vol. 1. Arquitectura.
Madrid:Mision Cientifica Espanola en Hispanoamerica,
Direccion General de Relaciones Culturales, Ministero
de Asuntos Exteriores.
Aldenderfer,Mark
1991 Continuityand Change in CeremonialStructuresat
Late Preceramic Asana, Southern Peru. LatinAmerican
Antiquity2:227-258.
ArellanoL., Jorge
1991 The New CulturalContexts of Tiahuanaco.In Huari
AdministrativeStructures: Prehistoxic MonumentalAr-
chitectureand State Government.WilliamIsbell and Gor-
don McEwan, eds. Pp. 259-280. Washington, DC:
DumbartonOaks Libraryand Research Collections.
Augustinians
1865[1560] Relacion de la religi6n y ritos del Peru, hecha
por los primeros religiosos Agustinos que alli pasaron
para la conversion de los naturales. Coleccion de docu-
mentos ineditos relativos al descubrimiento,conquistay
colonizacion de las posesiones Espanolas en Arnericay
Oceania.3:5-58. Madrid.
Bastien, Joseph
1978 Mountainof the Condor:Metaphorand Ritual in an
AndeanAyllu. St. Paul, MN:West Press.
Benson, Elizabeth
1992 The Worldof Moche. In Ancient Americas:Art from
SacredLandscapes.RichardTownsend, ed. Pp. 303-315.
Chicago:Art Institute of Chicago.
ANDEANPLAZASANDRITUAL/ JERRYD. MOORE 799
Birdwhistell, Ray
1970 Kinesics and Context:Essays on Body Motion Com-
munication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Blanton, Richard
1989 Continuityand Changein Public Architecture:Peri-
ods I throughV of the Valleyof Oaxaca,Mexico.In Monte
Alban's Hinterland Part II: Settlement Patterns in Tla-
colula, Etla, and Ocatlan,Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Vol.
1. Stephen Kowaleski, Gary Feinman, RichardBlanton,
LauraFinsten, and LauraNichols, eds. Pp. 409447. Ann
Arbor:Universityof MichiganMuseumof Anthropology.
Bonvillain, Nancy
1993 Language,Culture,and Communication:The Mean-
ing of Messages. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Buechler, Hans
1980 The MaskedMedia:AymaraFiestas and Social Inter-
action in the Bolivian Highlands.The Hague:Mouton.
Calancha,Antonio
1977[1638] Cronica Moralizada. Vol. 4. Lima: Ignacio
Prado Pastor.
Cannadine,David
1987 Introductionto Rituals of Royalty:Power and Cere-
monial in Traditional Societies. David Cannadine and
S. Price, eds. Pp. 1-19. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Cheney, Sheldon
1918 The Open-AirTheatre.New York:M. Kennerly.
Cieza de Leon, Pedro
198511555] Cronica del Peru. Part 2. Lima:Pontifica Uni-
versidade Catolica del Peru.
Cobo, Bernabe
199011653] Inka Religion and Customs. RolandHamilton,
trans. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Conklin,William
1990 Architecture of the Chimu:Memory,Function, and
Image. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingshipand State-
craft in Chimor.Michael Moseley and Alana Cordy-Col-
lins, eds. Pp. 43-74. Washington,DC: DumbartonOaks
Research Libraryand Collection.
1991 Tiahuanaco and Huari:Architectural Comparisons
and Interpretations.In HuariAdministrativeStructures:
Prehistoric MonumentalArchitectureand State Govern-
ment. William Isbell and Gordon McEwan, eds. Pp.
281-291. Washington,DC:DumbartonOaks Libraryand
Research Collections.
Da Matta,Roberto
1984 Carnivalin MultiplePlanes. In Rite, Drama,Festival,
Spectacle: Rehearsals toward a Theory of CulturalPer-
formance. J. MacAloon, ed. Pp. 208-240. Philadelphia:
Institute for the Study of HumanIssues.
Day, Kent
1982 Ciudadelas:TheirFormand Function.In ChanChan:
Andean Desert City.MichaelMoseley and KentDay, eds.
Pp. 55-66. Albuquerque:Universityof New Mexico Press.
Donnan, Christopher
1975 An Ancient PeruvianArchitecturalModel. The Mas-
terkey 49:20-29.
1978 Moche Art of Peru. Los Angeles: University of Cali-
fornia Museumof CulturalHistory.
800 * VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1996
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
Doyle, MaryEllen
1988 Ancestor Cult and Burial Ritual in the Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Century, Central Peru. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, History Department,University of California,Los
Angeles.
Duncan,James
1990 The City as Text:The Politics of LandscapeInterpre-
tation in the Kadyan Kingdom. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Duncan,James, ed.
1981 Housing and Identity. New York:Holmes and Meier.
Eco, Umberto
1980 Function and Sign:The Semiotics of Architecture.In
Signs, Symbols, and Architecture.GregoryBroadbent,R.
Bent, and C. Jenks, eds. Pp. l l-69. New York:John Wiley
and Sons.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt,Irenaus
1970 Ethnology, the Biology of Behavior.New York:Holt,
Rinehartand Winston.
Follis, John, and Dave Hammer
1979 ArchitecturalSigningand Graphics.New York:Whit-
ney Libraryof Design.
Gasparini,Graziano,and Luise Margolies
1980 Inca Architecture. Bloomington:IndianaUniversity
Press.
Geertz,Clifford
1980 Negara: The Theater State in Nineteenth Century
Bali. Princeton, NY:Princeton UniversityPress.
Gibson,James
1960 The Perception of the Visual World.New York:Riv-
erside Press.
Glave,Luis Miguel,and MariaIsabel Remy
1983 Estructuraagrariay vida ruralen una regionAndina:
Ollantaytamboentre los siglos XVIy XIX.Cusco: Centro
de Estudios RuralesAndinos, Bartolome de las Casas."
Golder,Herbert
1992 VisualMeaningin GreekDrama:Sophocles A,jaxand
the Art of Dying.In Advances in NonverbalCommunica-
tion: Sociocultural, Clinical, Esthetic, and LiteraxyPer-
spectives. Ferdinand Poyatos, ed. Pp. 323-360.
Amsterdam:John Beruamins.
Goldstein, Paul
1993 Tiwanaku Temples and State Expansion: A Ti-
wanaku Sunken-Courtin Moquegua,Peru. Latin Ameri-
can Antiquity4:22-47.
Grimes,Ronald L.
1976 Symbol and Conquest: Public Ritual and Drama in
Santa Fe, New Mexico. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Hall, Edwin T.
1959 The Silent Language.GardenCity, NY:Doubleday.
1966 The HiddenDimension.GardenCity,NY:Doubleday.
1968 Proxemics. CurrentAnthropology9:83-108.
1972 Silent Assumptions in Social Communication. In
People and Buildings. Robert Gutman,ed. Pp. 135-151.
New York:Basic Books.
Hillier,Bill, and Juliene Hanson
1984 The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Hyslop, John
1990 Inka Settlement Planning. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Isbell, William
1978 Cosmological OrderExpressed in Prehistoric Cere-
monial Centers. Actes du XLIICongres des American-
istes. Vol. 4. Pp. 269-279. Paris: Congres des American-
istes.
Keatinge,Richard,and Geoffrey Conrad
1983 ImperialistExpansionin PeruvianPrehistory:Chimu
Administration of a Conquered Territory. Journal of
Field Archaeology 10:255-283.
Kent,Susan, ed.
1990 Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An
InterdisciplinaryCross-CulturalStudy.Cambridge:Cam-
bridge UniversityPress.
Kidder,Alfred
1943 Some Early Sites in the NorthernLake Titicaca Ba-
sin. Papers of the Peabody Museum,vol. 27, no. 1. Cam-
bridge, MA:HarvardUniversity.
Knudsen,Vern, and CyrilHarris
1978 Acoustical Design in Architecture.New York:Acous-
tical Society of America.
Kolata,Alan
1990 The Urban Concept of Chan Chan.In The Northern
Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor. Michael
Moseley and Alana Cordy-Collins, eds. Pp. 107-144.
Washington,DC:DumbartonOaks Research Libraryand
Collection.
1993 The Tiwanaku:Portrait of an Andean Civilization.
Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
Kolata,Alan, and CarlosPonce Sanguines
1992 Tiwanaku:The City at the Center.In Ancient Ameri-
cas: Artfrom SacredLandscapes.RichardTownsend,ed.
Pp. 317-333. Chicago:Art Institute of Chicago.
Kuper,Hilda
1972 The Languageof Sites in the Politics of Space. Ameri-
can Anthropologist74:411-425.
Lawrence,Denise
1992 Transcendance of Place: The Role of La Placeta in
Valencia'sLas Fallas. In Place Attachment.HumanBe-
havior and Envircxnment: Advances in Theory and Re-
search, vol. 12. Irwin Altman and Setha Low, eds. Pp.
211-230. New York:Plenum Press.
Lawrence,Denise, and Setha Low
1990 Built Environmentand SpatialForm.AnnualReview
of Anthropology19:453-505.
Leach, Edmund
1968 Ritual. In InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social
Sciences. Vol. 13. D. Sills, ed. Pp. 520-526. New York:
Macmillan.
Low, Setha
1992 Symbolic Ties That Bind: Place Attachment in the
Plaza. In Place Attachment.HumanBehavior and Envi-
ronment:Advances in Theory and Research, vol. 12. Ir-
win Altmanand Setha Low, eds. Pp. 165-185. New York:
Plenum Press.
Low, Setha, and Erve Chambers,eds.
1989 Housing, Culture, and Design: A ComparativePer-
spective. Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.

MacCormack,Sabine
1991 Religion in the Andes: Vision and Imagination in
EarlyColonial Peru. Princeton,NJ:Princeton University
Press.
Mackey,Carol
1987 ChimuAdministrationin the Provinces. In The Ori-
gins and Development of the Andean State. Jonathan
Haas, Shelia Pozorski, and Thomas Pozorski, eds. Pp.
121-129. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mackey,Carol,and AlexandraKlymyshyn
1981 Construction and LaborOrganizationin the Chimu
Empire.Nawpa Pacha 19:99-114.
1990 The Southern Frontierof the ChimuEmpire.In The
NorthernDynasties: Kingshipand Statecraft in Chimor.
Michael Moseley and Alana Cordy-Collins, eds. Pp.
195-226. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Libraryand Collection.
Manzanilla,Linda
1992 Akapana:Una piramideen el centro del mundo.Mex-
ico: Instituto de InvestigacionesAntropologicas,Univer-
sidad Nacional Autonomade Mexico.
Manzanilla,Linda,and Eric Woodward
1990 Restos humanosasociados a la piramidede Akapana
(Tiwanaku, Bolivia). Latin American Antiquity
1:133-149.
Maxwell, Robert
1983 Contexts of Behavior:AnthropologicalDimensions.
Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
MohrChavez,Karen
1988 The Significance of Chiripain Lake Titicaca Basin
Development. Expedition 30(3):17-26.
Moore,Jerry
1981 Excavationnotes, April1-4, Manchan,CasmaValley,
Peru, Proyecto ChimuSur, author'sfiles.
1985 Household Economics and Political Integration:The
Lower Class of the Chimu Empire. Ph.D. dissertation,
Anthropology Department, University of California,
Santa Barbara.
1992 Pattern and Meaningin Prehistoric PeruvianArchi-
tecture: The Archaeologyof Social Controlin the Chimu
State. LatinAmericanAntiquity3:95-113.
1995 The Archaeology of Dual Organizationin Andean
South America:A Theoretical Review and Case Study.
LatinAmericanAntiquity6:165-181.
1996 Architecture and Power in the Prehispanic Andes.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Morris,Craig
1982 The Infrastructureof Inka Control in the Peruvian
Central Highlands. In The Inca and Aztec States,
1400-1800. George Collier, Renato Rosaldo, and John
Wirth,eds. Pp. 153-171. New York:Academic Press.
Morris,Craig,and Donald Thompson
1985 Huanuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland.
New York:Thames and Hudson.
Morris,Craig,and Adrianavon Hagen
1993 The Inka Empireand Its AndeanOrigins.New York:
AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistory.
Moseley, Michael
1975 Chan Chan:Andean Alternativeof the Preindustrial
City?Science 187:219-225.
ANDEANPLAZASAND RITUAL / JERRY D. MOORE 801
1982 Introduction:HumanExploitationand Organization.
In ChanChan:AndeanDesert City.MichaelMoseley and
KentDay, eds. Pp. 1-24. Albuquerque:Universityof New
Mexico Press.
1990 Structure and History in the Dynastic Lore of Chi-
mor.In The NorthernDynasties: Kingshipand Statecraft
in Chimor. Michael Moseley and Alana Cordy-Collins,
eds. Pp. 1-41. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Re-
search Libraryand Collection.
1992 The Incas and Their Ancestors. New York:Thames
and Hudson.
Moseley, Michael,and Alana Cordy-Collins,eds.
1990 The NorthernDynasties: Kingshipand Statecraftin
Chimor.Washington,DC:DumbartonOaks ResearchLi-
braryand Collection.
Moseley, Michael,and CarolMackey
1974 Twenty-Four Architectural Plans of Chan Chan,
Peru. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity,Peabody Mu-
seum.
Moseley, Michael,and Kent Day, eds.
1982 Chan Chan:Andean Desert City. Albuquerque:Uni-
versity of New Mexico Press.
Moseley, Michael,Robert Feldman,Paul Goldstein, and
Luis Watanabe
1991 Colonies and Conquest: Tiahuanaco and Huari in
Moquegua.In Huari AdministrativeStructures:Prehis-
toric MonumentalArchitecture and State Government.
WilliamIsbell and Gordon McEwan, eds. Pp. 121-140.
Washington,DC:DumbartonOaks Libraryand Research
Collections.
Netherly, Patricia
1978 Local Level Lords on the North Coast of Peru. Ph.D.
dissertation,AnthropologyDepartment,CornellUniver-
sity.
1990 Out of Many, One: The Organizationof Rule in the
North Coast Polities. In The Northern Dynasties: King-
ship and Statecraft in Chimor. Michael Moseley and
Alana Cordy-Collins,eds. Pp. 461-487. Washington,DC:
DumbartonOaks Research Libraxyand Collection.
OrmindoD. de Azevedo, Paulo
1982 Cusco, ciudad historica: Continuidad y cambio.
Lima:Edicions PEISA.
Parker,Gary
1976 GramaticaQuechua:Ancash-Huailas.Lima:Ministe-
rio de Educacion.
Paz, Octavio
1993 Review in the Form of a Preamble. In Essays on
Mexican Art. Helen Lane, trans. Pp. 1-26. New York:
HarcourtBrace.
Platt, Tristam
1986 Mirrorsand Maize:The Concept of Yanantin among
the Machaof Bolivia. In AnthropologicalHistory of An-
dean Polities. John Murra,Nathan Wachtel, and Jean
Revel, eds. Pp. 22S259. Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
Ponce Sanguines,Carlos
1969a Descripcion sumariadel templete semisubterraneo
de Tiwanaku.AcademiaNacional de Ciencias de Bolivia,
Publicacion 20. La Paz, Bolivia: Academia Nacional de
Ciencias de Bolivia.
802 * VOL. 98, NO. 4 * DECEMBER1996
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
1969b Tunapu y Ekako: Estudio arqueologico de las
efigies precolumbinas de Dorso Adunco. Academia Na-
cional de Ciencias de Bolivia, Publicacion 20. La Paz,
Bolivia:Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia.
1972 Tiwanaku:Espacio, tiempo y cultura.Ensayo de sfn-
tesis Arqueologica. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de
Bolivia, Publicacion 30. La Paz, Bolivia: Academia Na-
cional de Ciencias de Bolivia.
Preziosi, Donald
1979 Architecture,Languageand Meaning:The Originsof
the Built World and Its Semiotic Organization. The
Hague:Mouton.
Protzen, Jean-Pierre
1993 Inca Architecture and Construction at Ollan-
taytambo.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Ramsey, Charles,and HaroldSleeper
1988 Architectural Graphic Standards. New York: John
Wileyand Sons.
Rapoport,Amos
1969 House Form and Culture. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
1990 History and Precedent in Environmental Design.
New York:Plenum Press.
Rasnake, Roger Neil
1988 Domination and CulturalResistance: Authorityand
Power among an Andean People. Durham, NC: Duke
UniversityPress.
Relph, Edward
1976 Place and Placelessness. London:Pion Limited.
Richardson,Miles
1980 Cultureand the UrbanStage: The Nexus of Setting,
Behavior, and Image in Urban Places. In Environment
and Culture. Human Behavior and Environment: Ad-
vances in Theoxyand Research,vol. 4. IraAltman,Amos
Rapoport, and John Wohlwill, eds. Pp. 209-241. New
York:Plenum Press.
1982 Being-in-the-Market versus Being-in-the-Plaza.
AmericanEthnologist 9:421-436.
Rivera Sundt, Osvaldo
1989 Resultados de la excavacion en el centro ceremonial
de Lukurmata.In Arqueologiade Lukurmata.Alan Ko-
lata, ed. Pp. 59-88. Bolivia:InstitutoNacional de Cultura.
Ross, Helen
1974 Behaviourand Perceptionin StrangeEnvironments.
London:George Allen and Unwin.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, Maria
1984 El Baile en los ritos agrarios Andinos (Sierra Nor-
Central,Siglo XVII).Historiay Cultura17:51-60.
Rowe, John
1946 Inca Civilization at the Time of the Spanish Con-
quest. In Handbook of South American Indians. Julian
Steward, ed. Vol. 2. Pp. 183-330. Bureau of Arnerican
Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution.
1948 The Kingdomof Chimor.Acta Americana6:26-59.
Salzmann,Zdenek
1993 Language,Culture,and Society: An Introductionto
LinguisticAnthropology.Boulder:Westview Press.
Schmitt,Jean-Claude
1992 The Rationale of Gestures in the West: A History
from the 3rd to the 13th Centuries.In Advances in Non-
verbal Communication:Sociocultural,Clinical,Esthetic,
and Literary Perspectives. Ferdinand Poyatos, ed. Pp.
77-95. Amsterdam:John Beniamins.
Segall, Marshall,Donald Campbell,and MelvilleHerskovits
1966 The Influence of Cultureon Visual Perception.Indi-
anapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Smith,Adam,and Nicholas David
1995 The Production of Space and the House of Xidi
Sukur.CurrentAnthropology36:441-471.
Streeck, Jurgen,and MarkKnapp
1992 The Interaction of Visual and Verbal Features in
HumanCommunication.In Advances in NonverbalCom-
munication:Sociocultural, Clinical, Esthetic, and Liter-
ary Perspectives. Ferdinand Poyatos, ed. Pp. 3-23.
Amsterdam:John Beruamins.
Tambiah,Stanley J.
1985 Culture,Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropo-
logical Perspective. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Topic, John, and Michael Moseley
1983 Chan Chan:A Case Study of Urban Changein Peru.
Nawpa Pacha 21:153-182.
Traeger,George
1958 Paralinguistics:A First Approximation. Studies in
Linguistics 13:1-12.
Tschopik, H., Jr.
1946 The Aymara.In Handbook of South AmericanIndi-
ans. Julian Steward, ed. Vol. 2. Pp. 501-573. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, DC:
SmithsonianInstitution.
1951 The Aymaraof Chucuito, Peru. AnthropologicalPa-
pers, vol. 44, pt. 2. New York: American Museum of
NaturalHistory.
Tuan,Yi-Fu
1974 Topophilia:A Study of EnvironmentalPerception,
Attitudesand Value.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
1977 Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience.
Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Turner,Victor
1985 AreThere Universals of Performancein Myth,Ritual
and Drama?In On the Edge of the Bush. Edith Turner,
ed. Pp. 291-301. Tucson: University of ArizonaPress.
Uceda Castillo, Santiago
n.d. E1 culto a los muertos y a los ancestros: Repre-
sentaciones en escultura dentro de modelos arquitec-
tonicos en Madera.UnpublishedMS.
Zevi, Bruno
1959 Architectureas Space:How to Look at Architecture.
MiltonGendel, trans. New York:HorizonPress.
Zucker,Paul
1959 Town and Square: From the Agora to the Village
Green.New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Zuidema,R. T.
1990 Inca Civilization in Cuzeo. Austin: University of
Texas Press.